Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2011, at 23:31, benjayk wrote:
>> I won't answer to this post in detail, simply because I find it  
>> unsatisfying
>> to discuss details that are very easy to see for me, yet hardly
>> communicable.
>> Honestly, for all intents and purposes I have come to the conclusion  
>> that it
>> is just totally irrelevant to me whether COMP is true or false, which
>> renders the discussion about it's consequences moot. I believe in the
>> consequences that I like either way.
>> It seems to me all theoretical understanding is just a tool for  
>> emotional
>> understanding anyway.
> I think it is a bit dangerous to believe in things we like, just  
> because we like them. That is call wishful thinking.
I don't think I do this. If this were true I would just deny the existence
of suffering... Which I don't. Nevertheless I think truth and goodness are
very intimately related. It just seems true to me that emotional (or
intuitive) understanding is the ultimate goal, simply because I don't see
how theoretical understanding can serve any purpose in and of itself. It
only does this if it leads to good / less bad feelings (which I would
roughly equate to emotional understanding).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Theoretical understanding and emotional understanding provides a two- 
> way road. They complement each other very well, but can also be  
> orthogonal on some point. Comp itself is a locus where the theory  
> predict an opposition between reason and heart, with the explanation  
> that they are both right from their point of view, yet the view are  
> not entirely conciliable. Science will favor Bp, and religion will  
> favor Bp & p. Truth, the "& p",  plays the role of a mystical element.
OK. For me, I found that in case of doubt it seems to be better to follow
the heart. But only if you know yourself well enough to see what your heart
really wants! There is no rule here.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> Just that current humans still look for authoritative arguments, in
>>>>> all direction. I'm afraid I will have to come back next millennium.
>>>> You are right. I am more optimistic, though, I would advise you to
>>>> take a
>>>> shot next century ;).
>>> When I was young I was sure that computers, the UMs, would become
>>> personal objects, but I thought it would take one of two century, not
>>> 1/2 century; so you may be right. I was also pretty sure prohibition
>>> would fall down before 2000. I was wrong.
>>> So you may be right: next century perhaps. But I maight be right too.
>>> On conceptual thing, human are slow. Look how much people around you
>>> still believe that cannabis should be illegal, and that is only about
>>> a century of brainwashing. Aristotle theology is more than 1500 years
>>> of brainwashing, helped by billionth years of evolution. Those things
>>> will take time, even if salvia and plants might accelerate things, a
>>> little bit.
>> I think if enough people discover genuine love, there might be a chain
>> reaction that gets us to heaven on earth quicker than we can  
>> imagine :).
>> I've come to the belief that's it's really ALL about love (first and
>> foremost love towards yourself).
> I agree with this, but "love" is of the type [ ] *. It is spontaneous,  
> and get destroyed by coercion. We cannot enforce it. We can only  
> illustrate it.
Yes, in general your right. But even on this we can't be dogmatic. At least
I saw it in me, that when I am dogmatic on not using coercion towards
myself, this sometimes leads to greater (but more unconscious) coercion!
If I really think I have to do something, it might be better to coerce
myself to do it, rather than suffering the consequences of not following my
own sense of responsibility.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Love toward oneself is alas very dependent on contingence.
> The secret of self-love consists in having a self-loving mother/ 
> father, which needs a self-loving grandmother, which ...
> The ultimate fate of the humans might depend on the self-loving  
> quality of the first amoeba!
> This should not be taken without adding some grain of salt, of course.
I am not sure if your not thinking a bit materialstically here. It become
more and likely to me that we are not here contigently, but actually to
learn a "lesson" (not like in school, just have intuitive insight about
yourself) - and apperent contigencies are just part of the lesson (or truly
don't matter for our lesson). The apparently materialst world may just be a
simplification of spirit to learn the basics about how the "world" works
(action and reaction, clear rules, strong and obvious consequences to many
of our actions, good and bad, importance of love - stressed by the big
amounts of suffering we have to endure, impossibility of being in control
all of the time...). In the world of spirit our unexperienced souls may just
be lost, and not learn much (like in dreams, which are generally not very
consistent and clear experiences for us).
Of course there is no clear evidence that any of this is true. We can just
trust in our own intuition. This does not mean believing all esoteric stuff,
just being open to the possibility of something way vaster than this realm.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Even science is about love (towards
>> knowledge, progress, modesty,... - actually all very important  
>> things even
>> outside of science).
> Yes. Reason is the best servant of the heart, but only when the heart  
> can respect and listen to reason.
> The heart without reason leads to sort of hot madness.
> Reason without heart leads to a sort of cold madness.
> Happiness and love needs both reason and heart: it is cool madness :)
Hm, I guess you didn't wrote what you intended to here. Anyway, I still
agree. Though I would say there are some situations where it may be good to
relinquish all reason (like when meditating), but I can't imagine any
situation where it is good to not use the heart at all.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> We just need to see that and then the rest will follow!
> Yeah ... that is just easy to say, but hard to implement.
It's subtle. Loving is not really hard. It just seems hard as long as we
don't see that it is easy :). But we can't just insist that it has to be
easy, because this is hard, also (I am often stuck at insisting it has to be
easy and make myself suffer this way). So, as long as we are not aware that
our nature is effortless love we are a bit in a catch-33... We just have to
learn to become conscious of it at the pace of our own ability, there are no
permanent shortcuts here. Insisting to be in an effortless state of love is
like beating your child to grow up faster ;).
It may be obvious, but if we really are conviced that it is possible to be
in an effortless state of love, we may make a lot of subconscious struggle
out of that, by wanting to force it, because we are used to force things we
want in some way or another (not forcing violently, but being stubborn about
having to have it).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> With man made machine, it will be like that: either we recognize  
> ourself in those machine, and love them, or we don't. If we don't  
> their "heart" will not develop, and we will get the cold madness. I  
> think. But this, of course cannot be normative. Nobody can force  
> someone to love anything. In fact, and that is a reason you might one  
> day ... love comp, is that with comp the reason build theories and  
> warn the heart for NOT using them. Love and intelligence, like God,  
> has only "negative theological feature". The theories are metatheories  
> pointing on the pitfall of taking anything there too much literally.  
> Comp is really the most opposite thing to reductionism, despite its  
> main precise looks, and is often described as a form of reductionism.  
> But it is not, and people have to do some work on Gödel's technic to  
> understand that the reductionist appearance of the numbers is the main  
> illusion.
Hm, OK. It still seems to me reducing the ontology to numbers is a form of
reductionism as well.


View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to