Looking at the Philosophy Project


This post refers to the Philosophy Project.

The purpose of this post is simply to provide a holding area for ideas.

We shall be looking around at all different kind of stuff to digest it. The ideas shall first be discussed under the COMMENTS section. Anything pertinent will then be added to this post.


A self (being) seems to be simply a “center of considerations” that it holds and continually outputs.

As the perception point identifies itself with knowledge through considerations, it gets fixed in its place, and loses it fluidity. Thus,  “I,” or the self, is generated.

All knowledge, regardless of its source, should be consistent. When there is inconsistency, there must be something unresolved that is underlying that inconsistency. Spiritual progress occurs when one starts to spot inconsistencies as they come up naturally and applies mindfulness to them until they dissolve.

As one starts to look mindfully at an inconsistency, it may lead to a chain of inconsistencies. Just keep looking more closely at the inconsistency that is at the “top of the stack.” It is very important to follow the 12 points of mindfulness.

“I” generates considerations (assessment, speculations, judgments, justifications, assumptions, etc.). These considerations are capable of filtering whatever “I” looks at. Taking responsibility means not letting one’s considerations color one’s perception and seeing things as they are.

Considerations seem to bring in the factor of “preservation,” whether it is the preservation of self, or the preservation of property. Justice seems to be concerned with such preservation.

Everything about this universe is in flux. Nothing stays the same. Everything is impermanent. Yet this whole system made up of impermanence seems to be permanently there. How can this inconsistency of “impermanence being permanently there” be explained?

Perception is there as long as manifestation is there. When manifestation is not there, there is no perception either. Thus, there can never be a perception of the state of non-manifestation. We would always perceive manifestation to be there. Ha ha… Q.E.D.


(1) An “identity” may simply be a tight “knot” of considerations that needs to be loosened up.

(2) The self is the “center of considerations” analogous to the “center of mass.”

(3) An identity may not affect the self if it is somewhere at the periphery of considerations.

(4) If the identity is closer to the center, it may appear as if the self is stuck with it.

(5) But there are simply a bunch of considerations knotted together, which needs to be loosened up.

(6) Being stuck is simply “some considerations locked into each other.”


There seems to be two different levels of knowledge:

(1) A level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

(2) Another level of knowledge, which is generated when SELF starts to react to the previous level of knowledge.

Such a reaction may occur in chain resulting in ballooning of considerations. The only way to stop and reverse such ballooning of considerations would be to look non-judgmentally and see what is actually there.

Then one is no longer reacting to what is there. Instead one is now continually realizing what is there. This starts to deflate the ballooning considerations. In other words, the ego, or self, gradually starts to dissolve.

One can never predict where this process might lead to. :)


At death, the body disintegrates into its particles, and the identity that was the body is dissolved. Similarly, the observing and thinking part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into its particles (considerations), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.

However, the particles remain and they can recombine into another “body plus living soul” combination. There is infinity of such recombination.

What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know the details at the moment. But this seems to be going on forever like complex cycles of some eternal wave according to Hinduism.

Nirvana is something different altogether. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, nirvana is like exteriorization from CONSIDERATIONS. It is the separation of perception-point from all its considerations. This is called giving up of all attachment in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.

Nothing arrives at Nirvana. it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.

Parinirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into its own manifestation, extinguishing both. The laws of disintegration and reintegration are thus bypassed. But this is only my speculation.

The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On December 10, 2012 at 7:39 AM

    I shall be looking at the subject of OT8, the highest level attained in Scientology. This subject is currently being discussed at Geir’s blog:

    OT 8

    Geir himself is an OT 8. But there are many other OT 8s out there. The key investigation would be how OT 8 is different from previous states of enlightenment in other practices.



    • vinaire  On December 10, 2012 at 7:43 AM

      The Philosophy project establishes SELF as follows:

      THIRTY-NINE: Knowledge is incorporated as self.

      FORTY: Self is capable of consideration.

      This would be our starting point here.

      SELF precipitates from PERCEPTION.



    • vinaire  On December 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM

      A self (being) seems to be simply a point of knowledge that outputs considerations. This provides a new look at what a THETAN is.

      On OT levels one is trying to blow off disembodied beings (body thetans). This seems to be a highly anthropomorphic way of saying, “The purpose is to dissolve all inconsistencies in knowledge.” Thus, a BODY THETAN is nothing more than an inconsistency in knowledge..

      Actually, that is what this whole Philosophy Project is about. It is starting as broad as possible in fishing for inconsistencies and dissolving them.




    • vinaire  On December 10, 2012 at 12:40 PM

      A bridge, such as in Scientology, is not really needed if one follows the points of mindfulness. Here are the relevant points:

      1. Look attentively at what is right there in front of you.
      If there are many things in front of you, then start with the first thing that your attention goes to. Then look at the next thing, to which the attention goes naturally, and so on. If there are many issues you are concerned with, then start with the issue uppermost in your mind, then the next issue uppermost in your mind, and so on. Do not speculate. Do not go digging into the mind. Keep looking patiently at what comes up naturally to be scrutinized. Then observe it carefully.

      6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
      Let the mind present what to look at. There should be no digging into the memory. There should be no effort to recall. Simply look at what is right there in front of the mind’s eye. Let the mind un-stack itself naturally through patient contemplation. When that is allowed, the mind will never present anything overwhelming.

      The only difficulty would arise when a person is unwilling to look. This is where the early Scientology Grade processes come in to make the person look in specific direction until he/she gets a win.

      The moment a person is willing to look then simply let him/her get on with unstacking his mind using the simple directions provided in KHTK.



  • vinaire  On December 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM

    The following ideas are inspired by this post from 2ndxmr

    Guidance from another person is needed only when a person is very confused and has lost all his bearings. This is where the Objective Processing of Scientology comes in handy. It pulls a person out of introversion by making the physical universe real to the person. Now the person has some reality to hold on to while he tries to look.

    Still some guidance is needed to get the person started on the path to looking. The person’s mind is racing and he finds it hard to control. Meditation may help but it is not very structured. Some people may need more structured guidance. This is where lower grade Scientology auditing may come in handy. This auditing may be continued only to a point that a person has some realizations, and he is stabilized enough to start looking on his own.

    At this point, a person should be encouraged to start looking at inconsistencies that he finds in his life and environment. The KHTK approach is helpful here. Another person should guide him only when the person runs into difficulty, otherwise let that person get on with it. KHTK provides some exercises. To handle difficulties at this stage the IDENICS approach may be helpful. However, no further Scientology auditing is necessary. The person may simply get better and better with practice in looking at inconsistencies.

    By the way, during all the above sequence, Scientology E-meter is not needed. All that is needed is an understanding of mindfulness. Scientology lower grade processes can be run more easily with mindfulness in a friendly environment that allows for discussion.

    Engram running may require a bit of focus, but it becomes very natural if the KHTK rule of LETTING THE MIND UNSTACK ITSELF is followed. There aren’t many engrams. They just come out in the wash.

    There is no separate OT case. From beginning to end it is the same process of spotting and resolving inconsistencies. First easier inconsistencies get resolved and the person starts to become more capable for resolving greater inconsistencies.

    Thetan (being) is basically a point of knowledge. Suppose, we consider a PACKET OF KNOWLEDGE as an “object” then the thetan would be the “CENTER OF MASS” of that “object.” It is simply a convenient concept. Body thetans or more like “CHUNKS OF KNOWLEDGE” that are part of the whole packet of knowledge. The “chunk of knowledge” is simply not consistent with the whole “packet of knowledge.” That inconsistency needs to be dissolved. When that happens all the knowledge becomes consistent.



  • vinaire  On December 11, 2012 at 5:59 AM

    The following are ideas inspired by this post from Maria.

    I have been looking at what “I” or “me” is. It boils down to something resulting from perception. It is the “center” of knowledge that has accumulated around a perception-point in space. It fixes the perception-point in space, so it becomes an “I”.

    All that “I” creates are considerations (assessment, speculations, judgments, justifications, assumptions, etc.). Taking responsibility of one’s creations simply means sorting out inconsistencies in what one perceives physically or mentally. That’s it.

    All “I’s” are connected to each other through perception and knowledge. Thus, there are inconsistencies that are common to “I’s”. There is perception and knowledge of bodies, which also precipitates down to contribution to the formation of “I”. And so there are inconsistencies connected with bodies.

    Scientology tried to deal with the subject of perception and knowledge, But it made “individuality” the focus and got fixated there. “I” or individuality are simply points of focus just like the assumed “center of mass” of an object.

    One needs to understand the “mass” and not merely get fixated on the “center” of it.



  • vinaire  On December 11, 2012 at 6:33 AM

    The following are ideas inspired by this post from Maria.

    The placebo exercises are there to loosen up the “I” and reduce it back to a simple perception-point.

    Perception goes beyond self, where the perception-point is not fixated as self or individuality. In this state the perception-point is fluid and ever changing.

    Existence is what is perceived physically and mentally. It includes one’s inferences drawn from perception. It also includes self-awareness and self and its fixation.



  • vinaire  On December 11, 2012 at 6:03 PM

    If I were to put together an OT VIII process, it would go like this:

    (1) “Is there an inconsistency?”
    (2) (If yes) “Look at that inconsistency more closely.”
    (3) Now, Is there an inconsistency?”

    On Step (2), one would fully apply the 12 points of mindfulness. It may take as long as it takes. There is no rush. This step should be effortless. E-meter is not used. Actually, the idea here is to wean a person off any dependency on the E-meter. A dependency on E-meter would be an inconsistency.for somebody looking for enlightenment.

    The concept of inconsistency is described in the KHTK Looking section of this blog. It would be anything that doesn’t make sense, or which one feels conflicted about.

    The answer in step (3), may feed back into step (1), and so the process continues. If there is no inconsistency left in Step (3) then one starts anew with step (1).

    To me this is a fun process that treats life itself as a session.



    • vinaire  On December 11, 2012 at 9:42 PM

      Anybody who is stable enough to spot inconsistencies can start with the OT VIII process above. The step (2) of that process is as follows:

      (2) (If yes) “Look at that inconsistency more closely.”

      If on step (2), a traumatic incident happens to come up then follow the procedure given in APPROACH TO LOOKING #1:

      (2-1) Locate the confusion (or the trauma)
      (2-2) Locate the shift (a shift in oneself)
      (2-3) Locate the shock (surprise or realization that triggered the shift)
      (2-4) Look more closely at the area of shock and shift.
      (2-5) Make sure there is nothing hidden or suppressed in that area.



    • Chris Thompson  On December 11, 2012 at 9:53 PM

      works for me.


  • vinaire  On December 13, 2012 at 5:41 AM

    The following are ideas inspired by Per Schiøttz

    The key question is what is “I” and “you”? Thinking in these terms indicates a fixation on ‘self’. That fixation itself is charge.



  • vinaire  On December 13, 2012 at 5:44 AM

    I am currently studying the following:




    • vinaire  On December 13, 2012 at 5:49 AM

      This is a nice summation of SOCRATES:

      “He had his own religious faith: he believed in one God, and hoped in his modest way that death would not quite destroy him; but he knew that a lasting moral code could not be based upon so uncertain a theology. If one could build a system of morality absolutely independent of religious doctrine, as valid for the atheist as for the pietist, then theologies might come and go without loosening the moral cement that makes of wilful individuals the peaceful citizens of a community.”



    • vinaire  On December 13, 2012 at 6:05 AM

      Socrates was not claiming any knowledge. He was simply getting people to look at inconsistencies and come up with their own answers. He was inspiring people to think freely.

      For this action, Socrates was considered to be dangerous and consequently, was asked to drink poison.



    • vinaire  On December 13, 2012 at 7:30 AM

      It is interesting to compare the Socratic Method to Scientology.

      The Socratic method is free inquiry into whatever suits one’s fancy. It is questioning all existence. It is focusing on inconsistencies and looking at them more and more closely.

      On the other hand, Scientology is a humongous fixation on individuality and self. This fixation is enshrined in Scientology Axiom #1.

      Compare Socrates to Hubbard. Socrates had no care about himself. Hubbard was all care about himself.

      Look at the current leader of Scientology. He is obsessed about being the greatest individual ever.

      All OT levels are there to enhance the individuality by fighting other individuals. What are entities but individuals?

      The whole focus of Scientology is on individuality, and that is its fixation. It appeals to those who are fixated on sorting out themselves.



  • vinaire  On December 14, 2012 at 4:52 AM

    The following ideas are inspired by this post from Rafael

    Good and bad doesn’t apply because these are considerations generated by the self. Charge itself means some sort of tension or stress due to deviation from more natural state.

    The more natural state seems to be a perception-point that is not fixed at all, but which is completely fluid. Any ideas that are consistent seem to contribute to the generation of self by fixing the perception-point to some degree. The accumulated result of such ideas and considerations (that are relatively fixed in space) would be self.

    Just close your eyes and see what is there. If there is any lingering concern, it is a sign of self.



  • vinaire  On December 14, 2012 at 7:14 AM

    The following ideas are inspired by this post from Chris

    I keep on going back and forth between ‘consistent’ and ‘persistent’.

    The first stage of leveling out seems to be inconsistency to consistency.

    The second stage of leveling out seems to be consistency to simplification.

    I believe that it is within the process of simplification that we start losing persistence of that which is consistent.



    • Chris Thompson  On December 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM

      Yes, agreed. I’ve experienced this sensation and one example of it since we are blogging about OT8 is the subject of Scientology.

      First I leveled the inconsistencies by coming into harmony with those experiences. Then as I felt my experiences made better sense and were more consistent then I began looking at the Standard Tech of the subject of Scientology. As these inconsistencies began sticking out, I came to understand them better and to have a more consistent understanding of the subject of Scientology. Following this, I have ceased to create an experience of the subject of Scientology and that subject as a whole has diminished — become simplified.

      It seems to me that handling mental travails might follow a progression such as this. Disharmonic mental noise can be “tuned in” until harmony ensues. To be fair to LRH, he has lectured similarly in several places. The main difference that I am seeing between many Eastern mental disciplines and Scientology is the exaltation of individuality in Scn.


    • vinaire  On December 14, 2012 at 12:34 PM

      You might be wondering why I am writing the same thing at two different places. I am writing it here just to keep all my notes in one place.

      Your input has always been valuable.



  • vinaire  On December 14, 2012 at 6:38 PM

    I achieved a sort of a milestone with KHTK yesterday. Few months ago a Scientologist friend had asked me to work with his son who was really distraught, couldn’t study, had isolated himself and had almost dropped out of communication with his parents. I knew him as a child as I had given him some math sessions.

    At first I was not given all the details and was told that her son needed help with study. I started sessions with him on Skype to help him with Science and Math. I got in communication with him and he specially responded to creative aspects of solving problems.

    But there were other problems out of sight so no real progress was being made. I felt there was something wrong and kept prodding the mother because the son was not forthcoming.

    Finally the mother told me about the seriousness of the situation. The son got suspicious that I knew something about the precariousness of his situation he ended our study sessions. Finally, he ended up taking a leave of absence from the University he was going to and returned home with his parents. He did not want any Scientology handling. He wanted to go and see a psyche. His parents were very distraught. They didn’t want any psyche history on their son’s health record. So they persuaded him to talk to me again.

    This time we started knowing fully well that there was a situation deeper than that of study that needed to be addressed. He agreed to an Idenics session***. We did an Idenics session but he did not come up with anything that could be worked upon. What to do now? He was extremely private about whatever was bothering him..

    So I took the KHTK approach. I told him that his privacy won’t be violated if I trained him on how to handle his situation. So we discussed LOOKING and MINDFULNESS. I gave him KHTK issues from my blog to study. We discussed the KHTK Exercise from Buddha about Mindfulness in Breathing. I coached him through it for a brief period and let him do it by himself. I Skyped with him everyday.

    At first he didn’t believe that he would get anything out of this Exercise. I have no idea to what degree he attempted the exercise on his own; but I kept up the daily discussion on looking and answered his questions to the best of my ability. At least I was able to keep him interested. In between he got really discouraged and wanted to see a shrink again. But he knew he would have to give him details about his problem, which he was not prepared to.

    Then I offered to give him Idenics session again. I told him that he does not have to give me any details about his situation, but he should at least look at it himself. Apparently, he was in a total denial about the situation. But apparently the KHTK Exercise helped him to move past that denial. This time he was really looking at something significant in the Idenics session.

    We did a couple of Idenics sessions. I still had no clue to what his problem was. But he seems to be looking at something that happened about a year ago. He ran some feelings, emotions, ideas, etc. without telling me what they were. After that he wanted to contemplate over that incident himself using KHTK Exercises. I let him do so.

    Still I called him daily, asked him a few questions about his relationship with his parents, because from talking to the parents it seemed there was a situation there. I had him look at that relationship with different perspectives. He started to look better and his communication also started to improve.

    By this time he indicated that he had finally narrowed down the problem and that he was looking at it. He was willing to discuss it in most general terms. I told him about inconsistencies and how to follow them. As far as I was concerned it was a totally abstract exercise. I had no data as to his situation. But now he understood “mindfulness” better, and was getting better at applying it.

    He called me yesterday and told me that he could let go of that incident (whatever it was) and he was feeling fine. He looked a lot better in his appearance and somewhat cheerful.

    I have not been able to get in touch with the parents to confirm if their son is doing better. Without that confirmation I cannot say if I was able to bring about some improvement. But what I am trying to say here is that I was somewhat able to penetrate a wall with KHTK, that seemed to be impenetrable with other methods.

    Well, I shall report the results as soon as I find out.
    *** What I have referred to above as “Idenics session” is simply guiding a person through the steps as laid out in

    Addressing Unwanted Condition

    The above steps are broadly based on what I learned in my Idenics training. It is not the IDENICS per Mike Goldstein. So, this comment may serve as a correction.



    • Chris Thompson  On December 14, 2012 at 9:32 PM



    • vinaire  On December 14, 2012 at 9:41 PM

      Well, I just verified, the son is definitely doing better. Now I need to work with the parents. I shall be starting with the mother on Monday.


  • vinaire  On December 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM

    I find that KHTK approach of non-judgmental looking goes much deeper than either Scientology or Idenics techniques. The above case would have been evaluated as heavily PTS in Scientology. However, the KHTK approach seems to have produced a stable result in this case.

    There was no earth shattering win that was voiced. But there was calmness and restored confidence in oneself.



  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 5:41 AM

    Searching for the cause for every manifestation generates inconsistencies, because there is also the property of the “first cause”. I put “first cause” in quotes because it is a misnomer.


    TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.

    TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.

    TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.

    TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.

    TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.



  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 6:14 AM

    An irony would be an indicator of inconsistency. Sarcasm is similar but it adds invalidation and ridicule. Satire has the purpose of constructive criticism. But they all come about because of the perception of some inconsistency.

    The purpose of irony seems to be to bring an inconsistency to attention by making it absurd. This is what Plato was good at.

    From Dictionary.com:

    Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied, as in the comment, “Beautiful weather, isn’t it?” made when it is raining or nasty.

    Ironic literature exploits, in addition to the rhetorical figure, such devices as character development, situation, and plot to stress the paradoxical nature of reality or the contrast between an ideal and actual condition, set of circumstances, etc., frequently in such a way as to stress the absurdity present in the contradiction between substance and form.

    Irony differs from sarcasm in greater subtlety and wit. In sarcasm ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in “What a fine musician you turned out to be!” or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, “You couldn’t play one piece correctly if you had two assistants.”

    The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection, whereas satire and irony arising originally as literary and rhetorical forms, are exhibited in the organization or structuring of either language or literary material. Satire usually implies the use of irony or sarcasm for censorious or critical purposes and is often directed at public figures or institutions, conventional behavior, political situations, etc.


  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 7:38 AM

    From Wikipedia:

    Protagoras is believed to have created a major controversy during ancient times through his statement that “man is the measure of all things”. This idea was revolutionary for the time and contrasted with other philosophical doctrines that claimed the universe was based on something objective, outside the human influence.

    The above depends on how one defines “human” or “man”. To me “perception is the measure of all things.”



  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM

    From Wikipedia:

    Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cf. cultural relativism). Another widespread and contentious form is moral relativism.

    Relativism seems to make sense to me.



  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM

    Plato: “No sophist can teach virtue to people that do not already possess it.”

    For me, virtues may be taught only be removing confusion, and not through indoctrination. Whether Sophists were removing confusions or indoctrinating, i don’t know.



  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 8:08 AM

    From Wikipedia:

    Phenomenalism is the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli (e.g. redness, hardness, softness, sweetness, etc.) situated in time and in space. In particular, phenomenalism reduces talk about physical objects in the external world to talk about bundles of sense-data.

    Phenomenalism seems to make sense to me.

    Plato ascribes to Protagoras an early form of phenomenalism, in which what is or appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual. However, as it is clearly presented in the Theaetetus, Protagoras explains that some of such controversial views may result from an ill body or mind. He stresses that although all views may appear equally true, and perhaps should be equally respected, they are certainly not of equal gravity. One may be useful and advantageous to the person that has it while another may prove harmful. Hence, the sophist is there to teach the student how to discriminate between them, i.e. to teach virtue.

    One doesn’t always perceive things as they are if one is looking through the filter of one’s considerations. As one becomes aware of one’s considerations and removes them as a filter, what remains is closer to what is there. But this is like peeling the layers of an onion. What is truly objective is always subject to question.



  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM

    From Wikipedia:

    Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

    Agnosticism seems to make sense to me.



  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 9:13 AM

    Plato: “Is might right, and justice the interest of the stronger?

    Justice is the product of considerations. All such considerations are produced after the formulation of SELF. The “knowledge” produced by considerations is different from the knowledge obtained directly from perception.

    There is mental perception of considerations too, but that is another layer of the “onion of knowledge.”

    Thus justice is the product of considerations. Considerations seem to bring in the factor of “preservation,” whether it is the preservation of self, or the preservation of properties associated with self. Justice seems to be concerned with such preservation.



    • vinaire  On December 16, 2012 at 7:03 AM

      What is Justice? What is fair?

      This seems to be a very fundamental question. What is justice?—shall we seek righteousness, or shall we seek power?—is it better to be good, or to be strong?

      Plato points out that justice is a relation among individuals, depending on social organization; and that in consequence it can be studied better as part of the structure of a community than as a quality of personal conduct. If, he suggests, we can picture a just state, we shall be in a better position to describe a just individual.



    • vinaire  On December 16, 2012 at 7:38 AM

      Problem of justice lies in the factors that Men are not content with a simple life: they are acquisitive, ambitious, competitive, and jealous; they soon tire of what they have, and pine for what they have not; and they seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another, the rivalry of groups for the resources of the soil, and then war. Trade and finance develop, and bring new class-divisions.

      “Any ordinary city is in fact two cities, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich, each at war with the other; and in either division there are smaller ones—you would make a great mistake if you treated them as single states”

      A mercantile bourgeoisie arises, whose members seek social position through wealth and conspicuous consumption:

      “they will spend large sums of money on their wives”

      These changes in the distribution of wealth produce political changes: as the wealth of the merchant over-reaches that of the land-owner, aristocracy gives way to a plutocratic oligarchy—wealthy traders and bankers rule the state. Then statesmanship, which is the coordination of social forces and the adjustment of policy to growth, is replaced by politics, which is the strategy of party and the lust for the spoils of office.


      This seems to be the case in USA today. We have politics, which is the strategy of party and the lust for the spoils of office. We have wealthy traders and bankers trying to rule the state.



    • vinaire  On December 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM

      Another interesting observation:

      Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle. Aristocracy ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchy ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. In either case the end is revolution.

      When revolution comes it may seem to arise from little causes and petty whims; but though it may spring from slight occasions it is the precipitate result of grave and accumulated wrongs; when a body is weakened by neglected ills, the merest exposure may bring serious disease.

      “Then democracy comes: the poor overcome their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing the rest; and give to the people an equal share of freedom and power.”


      I do not think this would be the situation in USA if we start educating people in reducing waste and becoming more efficient. The fundamental problem is knowing and using our resources more efficiently.



    • vinaire  On December 16, 2012 at 8:45 AM

      Problem of DEMOCRACY:

      But even democracy ruins itself by excess… of democracy. Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses.

      “As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them.”

      To get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in a popular play (a hit, no doubt, at Aristophanes, whose comedies attacked almost every new idea). Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd do loves flattery, it is so “hungry for honey,” that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the “protector of the people” rises to supreme power. (Consider the history of Rome.)

      This is where we are in USA. If democracy fails, we shall be heading towards tyranny or autocracy. Educating the public toward greater awareness seems to be the only way out. This Information Age offers us the best opportunity. We have to make the best of this opportunity.



  • vinaire  On December 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

    True justice seems to lie in removing inconsistencies without any fixation on the preservation of any consideration, such as, self.

    For example, I am currently working as a consultant for a small company that is poised for rapid growth. I am looking at functions that need to be in place. I am training employees associated with these functions to get those functions implemented. In doing this training, I am very much aware of the capabilities and limitations that I am dealing with. I am not rejecting someone for their limitation but applying KHTK on the fly to help him or her handle that limitation. Here I am treating limitation as an inconsistency and resolving it regardless of who that person is. This is justice.



%d bloggers like this: