our world / earth as a simulation

[heatrate]

What do you guys think of what the guy who runs this site says about our physical incarnations as being fake / a simulation? Have you come across this guy's website before? Apparently he is actively doing work to rectify the evil intentions designed into the simulation i.e. to inject trauma and other ills into our subtle bodies.

 

https://www.soul-healer.com/

 

Please have a full read of the details he presents. I think if what he says is true then all these techniques like qigong, neidan are hacks into the simulation like hacks built into a video game (like supermario getting more lives by engaging in certain activities). But who knows for sure....

[thelerner]

I kinda doubt it.   I guess it can be seen as a modernist take on the world as 'Maya'.  There can be benefits in using some Matrix philosophy in life, but taking a pop culture movie literally is usually asking for trouble.  As the Beatles said, 'We all want to change the world, but ' you have to keep some grounding in the tic toc 'real' world.

 

   Beyond The Matrix there was good low key move called 'Cafe' that took place in a coffee shop.  One of the regulars was a computer programmer working on an involved simulation game.   Throughout the stories, a little girl comes up him, saying they have things in common because she is god and he is one of the characters in her simulation game.  Good story, partly because its just one thread in several. 

 

Partial definitions- Religion is trying to 'do' Gods will.  Magic is trying to get the Universe to do your will.  Frustration is when the universe, doesn't do what you want.  Zen/Flow mentality is going along with the Universe, knowing you can steer a little bit.  

 

 

addon> course (per the OP), one never knows but I don't think it'd make much difference, or that there are any easy cheat codes. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by thelerner

[sustainablefarm86]

I don't know. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by King Jade
Removed a part

[manitou]

When 'somebody' uses that many 'quotes' in their 'writing', I think there "might' be a bit of a 'screw' loose.  But it 'might' be a good 'topic' for 'General' 'Discussion'. 

 

In a broad sense, when you look at the fact that 99.99% of the measurable content of an atom is space, it logically flows that we are 99.99 percent space as well.  I dunno.  Are we actually here, or are we a dream on the backdrop of consciousness?  Plato must have sat in a cave for many hours thinking about the shadows of people cast on the wall.

 

I like the fact that you're an independent thinker.  You'll find plenty of those here.  Welcome.

[Fa Xin]

Even if I were to tell you it’s all a game, would it change anything? I’m just a random dude on a forum. And even if you did believe me, it doesn’t mean you realize it on an experiential level. It would just be a belief, which is nothing more than a mind story.

 

For those who get a peak at the source code, I think they still have to play the game.

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Fa Xin

[wandelaar]

@ heatrate

 

It's no more than speculation as long as there are no arguments to back it up. The guy says he has lots of proofs. Perhaps you could post some of his supposed proofs here, so we can see whether they make sense...

[Lost in Translation]

I'm stuck on the opening header:

 

Quote

Evidence: Matrix Film type Interfaced People into a Duplicated Population Simulation Argument Reality Combination

 

I'm trying to understand this sentence.

 

Subject: "Matrix Film type"

Verb: "Interfaced" (past tense)

Direct object: "People"

 

So far so good, but what were the people interfaced in to?

 

"a Duplicated Population Simulation Argument Reality Combination"

 

What the hell does this mean? Is this is combination? Is this is an argument? Is this is simulation?

 

I hate to nit-pick.. Actually, that's a lie. I love to nit-pick, and there are too many nits in this sentence for me to pick.

 

The opening topic is supposed to be powerful. It's supposed to draw the reader in. This topic tells me to run the hell away!

[Nungali]

Simply , It means ( and it SHOULD  be old hat by now ) that someone was so impressed with the Matrix Film and its concepts 'they want to 'play it' .  Its a mild manifestation of 'Daimonic reality'  .Then people 'manifest it; in all sorts of ways ; fun , 'true believers' , internet sites, club memberships, fancy dress parties, forms of psychosis,  money spinners etc. - Men in Black film had a similar manifestation ( there was even 'Men in White' stuff  on the internet  ; we reveal the truth about this alien stuff, not like men in black who suppress it ) .   Its an interesting psychological phenomena .

 

But in a way , 'our world'   is just the perception of the world we are in , we 'simulate 'the this world / earth'  (our interaction and with this environment ) ourselves.  ' Personna'   (the t pe or level of self that is created by the self interacting with their outward environment).

 

  Or even 'Mara'  or Maya , if one prefers.

 

Peeps been struggling with this one since there were peeps  and they come up with all different solutions  ....  <shrug>  ...  s'long as they work .

 

Myself, I prefer to think we are all part of the dreaming  of a HUGE snake curled up  far underground ..... in the middle of Australia , of course.   

 

 

 

 

[manitou]

30 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Simply , It means ( and it SHOULD  be old hat by now ) that someone was so impressed with the Matrix Film and its concepts 'they want to 'play it' .  Its a mild manifestation of 'Daimonic reality'  .Then people 'manifest it; in all sorts of ways ; fun , 'true believers' , internet sites, club memberships, fancy dress parties, forms of psychosis,  money spinners etc. - Men in Black film had a similar manifestation ( there was even 'Men in White' stuff  on the internet  ; we reveal the truth about this alien stuff, not like men in black who suppress it ) .   Its an interesting psychological phenomena .

 

But in a way , 'our world'   is just the perception of the world we are in , we 'simulate 'the this world / earth'  (our interaction and with this environment ) ourselves.  ' Personna'   (the t pe or level of self that is created by the self interacting with their outward environment).

 

  Or even 'Mara'  or Maya , if one prefers.

 

Peeps been struggling with this one since there were peeps  and they come up with all different solutions  ....  <shrug>  ...  s'long as they work .

 

Myself, I prefer to think we are all part of the dreaming  of a HUGE snake curled up  far underground ..... in the middle of Australia , of course.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really nice take on that, Nungali.  But I'm a little concerned about all the quotes you used.  Are you a bit of a nut job?

[Aspen]

In a sense. That is, science guys make a lot of claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

For instance, plugging in  Newton's equation for gravity into a lunar eclipse scenario (bodies lined up nicely to eliminate most of the math) yields a gravitational pull of 2+ times greater from the side of sun, so technically the moon should be gone already (is it?). 

I didn't check with general relativity, because I'm lazy, and I don't really buy the universe with "just gravity". Mostly because I don't see a way to make it stable.

 

The Earth supposedly has a molten nickel core of 10 000 degrees Celsius, but at the same time it has a powerful magnetic field. Would electricity conduct at that temperature?

 

The Solar system is supposedly formed form a gaseous disk by accretion, so we postulate that the heaviest elements reside in the planetary core ... except for the sun, where the core is supposedly hydrogen. And for Pluto, since it hangs out outside the rotational plane. Rotation of the planets happens due to supply of initial momentum and lack of inertia. Accretion happened because the gaseous disk was ... slowing down somehow? due to friction? despite there being nothing to "slow down" against. And we still don't know why the planets rotate around their axis (or don't rotate? moon doesn't seem to rotate).

 

Natural selection does not explain origin of the species, since different species can't interbreed, and thus evolution is profoundly discontinuous. For a new species to appear in that paradigm, at least a pair has to acquire the same mutation simultaneously, survive, not get the mutation removed via DNA error checking,  then outcompete /outbreed their own kind to extinction, all without leaving a trace in the fossil record. Ditto for humans evolving from monkeys somehow -- we are not "better adapted" to the environment than they are. We are weaker, we can't handle cold, we can't climb worth shit. Ditto for races -- if skin color is an adaptation for rate of sunlight, European people should be black, and no real difference should exist between Europeans and Asians. 

 

Chernobyl was supposed to be radioactive for 20000 years, yet people go hang out there casually 30 years later. (We could split hairs about everything being a teensy bit radioactive, my point is about the boldness of claims).

 

And it goes on, and there is no end to it. I'm not really anti science, but I experience  a lack of buy in into the rationalist worldview. It basically a fairy tale that invokes "oh, it happened a really long time ago, real far away, and YOU CAN'T CONFIRM SHIT" several times too many. If all you need is a stopgap against religious fundamentalism it's good enough, but I'd hate to build on that foundation.

 

I wouldn't say simulation, but maybe I just didn't push the envelope enough. 

[rideforever]

If you have no real challenges in life and no-one to teach you how to respond to these challenges, then life becomes meaningless.

Then you might consider it to be a "simulation", because everything that is real about it has been hidden from you.

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

Really nice take on that, Nungali.  But I'm a little concerned about all the quotes you used.  Are you a bit of a nut job?

 

I like to put 'specifically meant terms' in quote marks so actual 'nut jobs' dont start up 'insisting on me'  those terms mean what they 'think ' they do . 

 

Nice change tho , most peeps think I am a nut job because of the big snake theory 

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Aspen said:

In a sense. That is, science guys make a lot of claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the best part of the fundamental sciences is pseudo-science, a religion in  scientific guise. 

[wandelaar]

5 hours ago, Aspen said:

In a sense. That is, science guys make a lot of claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

And anti-science guys ask a lot of questions that prove that they don't want to put in the necessary effort to understand the problems they are talking about. You could start separate topics about the scientific problems you encounter, and I and others who know about it will then try to answer your questions there. But being lazy and joining in the postmodernist anti-science choir will not do, you will have to put in effort to understand the science behind your questions.

[Zen Pig]

Like most things, thoughts, ideas in this world, we think we are on to some new idea, and then come to find out that this new idea was discussed at least 3500 years.  This is a humorist rendition of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  Enjoy---

 

Socrates: “Why do people think philosophy is bullshit? Let me put it this way - imagine you’re in a cave, all chained up so you can’t turn your body at all, and all you get to look at is this one wall. Some assholes behind you are making shadow puppets using the light from a fire and making echo noises and that’s all you or anyone else chained up has seen or heard all your life. Sounds terrible, right? Except it’s all you’ve ever known, shadows and echoes, and that’s your whole world - there’s no way you could know that, really, you’re watching a slightly-improved M. Night Shyamalan film.

"In fact, you get pretty good at understanding how the patterns in the show work, and everyone else chained up is like, ‘Holy shit bro, how did you know that that tree was going to fall on that guy?’ and you’re like, 'It’s because I fucking pay attention and I’m smart as shit.’ You’re the smartest of the chained, and they all revere you." 

Glaucon: "But Socrates, a tree didn’t really hit a guy. It’s all shadows." 

Socrates: "No shit, Glaucon, but you don’t know that. You think the shadows are real things. Everyone does. Now shut up and let me finish.

 

"So eventually, someone comes and unchains you and drags you out of the cave. At first you’d say, 'Seriously, what the fuck is going on?!’ Well, actually, at first you’d say, 'HOLY SHIT MY EYES’ and you’d want to go back to the safe, familiar shadows. But even once your eyes worked you wouldn’t believe them, because everything you ever thought was real is gone. You’d look at a tree, and say 'That’s not a tree. I know trees. And you, sir, are no tree. THAT DOWN THERE is a tree.’ But you’re wrong. Down there is a shadow of a tree.

"Slowly, as your eyes got better, you’d see more and more shit. Eventually, you’d see the sun, and realize that it’s the source of all light. You can’t see shit without the sun. And eventually, you’d figure it out. Something would click in your brain: 'oh, shit, that IS a tree. Fuck me. So… nothing in the cave was real? I feel like such an asshole.’ But it’s not your fault, so don’t be so hard on yourself.

"Finally you’d want to go down and tell everyone about everything you’ve discovered. Except, and here’s the hilarious part, they think you’ve gone fucking crazy. You’d say, 'Guys, real trees are green!’ and they’d say, 'What the fuck is green? THAT is a tree over there.’ And you’d squint and look at the wall, but you know you’re fucked because now you’re used to having sunlight, and now you can’t see shit. So they’d laugh at you, and agree that wherever it was that you went, no one should go there because it turns people into dickheads.

"Philosophy, same thing. The soul ascends and apprehends the forms, the nature of everything, and eventually the very Idea of Good that gives light to everything else. And then the philosopher has to go back to the cave and try to explain it to people who don’t even know what Green is, to say nothing of the Good. But the philosopher didn’t make up the Good, it was always there, and the only way to really make sense of it is to uncover it for yourself. You can’t force knowledge into a dumbass any more than you can force sight into a blind man.

"So if you want to learn, be prepared for a difficult journey, and be prepared to make some mistakes. That’s okay, it’s all part of the process. True knowledge must be obtained the hard way, and some people just don’t want to see the light.”

–

(Tommy Maranges)

[wandelaar]

Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a double edged sword. Just as it can be used to induce doubt about the reality of the world of sensory experience, it can also be used to induce doubt about the reality of the experiences of those who claim superior (super-sensory or even super-rational) knowledge. There could be a nested sequence of caves within caves, within caves, etc.

 

The supposition that we live in a simulation just adds silly speculations to the world we know. Every age comes with it's own speculations and ours typically comes up with the idea that it is all running on a computer. Much better is to just call the foundation of our world Tao, and leave it at that.

[manitou]

1 hour ago, Zen Pig said:

Like most things, thoughts, ideas in this world, we think we are on to some new idea, and then come to find out that this new idea was discussed at least 3500 years.  This is a humorist rendition of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  Enjoy---

(Tommy Maranges)

 

 

LOL.  That is so incredibly true.  Occasionally I will smoke a little cannabis and the ideas just keep coming - deep and straight to what I perceive as the truth.  And I'm sure it's a totally original thought. Then, a month later, I'll be reading a book that refers to some ancient reference to the very same idea.  I think that's a bit of a proof of the evolution of the collective consciousness, the oneness of everything and everyone, and the illusion that time is linear.

[rideforever]

I am sorry this is a little long.

 

The allegory of the cave is wrong, in my opinion.

It's common for teachers / thinkers to blame everyone for being more stupid than "me".

But in fact there is a very good reason the cave dwellers don't see truth.

 

( And one should not forget that often the teacher / thinker also does not see the truth ... and the story he tells, the allegory, is the story he tells himself ... and has not worked for him. )

 

Why can't people see reality ?   Just wake up !   .... this doesn't work.   

Many teachers taught for decades and shouted at everyone to just wake up ... only to realise after decades that nobody understood them.   And in fact the teachers did not understand the process of their own transformation, and so could help much and resorted to shouting.

 

In the allegory it says that the soul is trapped in the cave, but this is not true.   How can a soul be trapped ?   To be a soul is to be untrapped.   Therefore it is not the soul that is trapped, but only the potential for a soul.   Like an acorn is the potential of a tree.   In fact it may be more accurate to say that the world spirit is trapped in a number of bodies and only with care will the bodies effect the crystalization of the world spirit into individual beings, which are unique independent intelligences.   The world spirit obviously doesn't need any help to be the world spirit, so the only thing that can change is the formation of something new.

 

And so it is not wonder that people don't just leave the cave ... because they are not souls yet.   And no amount of screaming at them can work.

 

Existence is not entirely stupid.   All the experiences here, family, pain, the seasons ... are there to cultivate you into souls.   All required, it is through human life that you learn things, and only from those things will you turn to the Light.   So one must engage with life.

 

Now the problem is corruption.   As the humans gain a tiny bit of intelligence in their journeys, they start to do many unsound things.   They kill each other.   They use their intelligence for exploitation.   They lie to each other.   Like foolish monkeys who have learnt a tiny thing and run with it.

 

But what is most confusing is that they start telling everyone what to do, with their 2 new brain cells.   And many speakers / philosophers are in this category.   They adore to tell everyone what to do.   Especially young people that are vulnerable to being especially f****ed up by listening to new ideas that lead them astray and whole generations lost.

 

The "modern" world, mentalised and virtualised as it is ... removes people from the kinds of challenges that cause them to grow.   It is a world designed to be fake.

 

Education is often a question of being taught to be fake just like the rest of us .... anything else makes everyone feel their shame.   But they are not very intelligent so even if you do feel shame it is not really feeling true shame, because humans are just not intelligent, we are chimpanzee +, that's all.   That's why many people who have led others astray die smiling and can be sigh forgiven.

 

Deeper currents : to awaken as an individual intelligence is a extremely jarring and painful shocking experience, like suddenly realising you exist.  And chimpanzee+ is deeply afraid of such things, terrified, and rightly so.

 

Humans are simply at a painful point in the development of beings, at this point they can easily and readily misbehave and destroy each other, and they do.

 

Why does life allow this ?  One reason may be that life wishes to create truly free beings, and so it does not assist people much, unless they truly ask.   Life does not want mollicoddled fools.   Another reason is that as you suffer, life suffers, so it knows your pain.   And in the end, physical death is a great mercy to all people, so one can truly comfort oneself that it will be over one day.

 

Hatred of sexuality, power, strength, goodness, love, and truth .... is deeply ingrained in human society and comes with roses.   Compassion, oneness, selfishness ... and so on ... such words mask the deep hatred of anything Real inside you.

 

So, Plato is just another unhelpful big mouth, and the truth is quite different.   Comprehending the difficult nature of this passage, one can us an approach that is suitable.  Perhaps an approach that combines wishing to know the truth of oneself, with rapid and unsmug  work for advancement, demanding little else of life, might be suitable for the season that we find ourselves in.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

I have a version of the Matrix movies on dvd's with commentaries by  Cornel West and Colin Wilson. The two philosophers don't take the story literally, but think of the matrix as a metaphor of this world being 'maya', or a mental construction of sorts.

 

Here is a free version that might be of interest to some, even though this is audio only and includes just the first part of the trilogy.

 

 

That's essentially how I am looking at these movies too: They are replete with meaning, but to get at it, you need to dig deep enough. The Wachowski brothers (sorry, sisters by now ) intentionally didn't explain the background to the movies, so you can freely use them as a mirror reflecting your own innate understanding. And you may actually find more and more of that, everytime you watch them again.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[manitou]

33 minutes ago, rideforever said:

  Like an acorn is the potential of a tree.  

 

 

Realization of this concept, 'the oak is in the acorn', was the very thing that started me on my spiritual journey many years ago.  What a delight it was to see it here...

[wandelaar]

11 minutes ago, manitou said:

Realization of this concept, 'the oak is in the acorn', was the very thing that started me on my spiritual journey many years ago.  What a delight it was to see it here...

 

Why was that?

[Zen Pig]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

So, Plato is just another unhelpful big mouth, and the truth is quite different.   Comprehending the difficult nature of this passage, one can us an approach that is suitable. 

For one thing, this was a funny reproduction of what Plato said.  sometimes we folks in the so-called "spiritual searching crowed" forget to just laugh. Or maybe I am to old to get young folks sense of humor which might be the case.........  but, this was an Allegory , to wit, : 

 

"

Definition of allegory 

 

1: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existencea writer known for his use of allegoryalso : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expressionThe poem is an allegory of love and jealousy.

2: a symbolic representation : EMBLEM sense 2"

 

An allegory does not have to conform to logical rational investigation. it is more of a ,,what do you modern kids use now days........ yes a Meme, like a picture that gives a sense of things. 

 

Kind of like Picasso's bull did not look like a real bull, but gave a subjunctive impression. hard to enplane. thanks for the comments. 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Zen Pig

[rideforever]

14 minutes ago, Zen Pig said:

forget to just laugh

 

Problem is the allegory describes the cause and solution to a major human problem, and it appears to be incorrect on both counts. 

But yes laughing is good.   

It is good to actually fix your problems also.

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

So, Plato is just another unhelpful big mouth, and the truth is quite different.   Comprehending the difficult nature of this passage, one can us an approach that is suitable.  Perhaps an approach that combines wishing to know the truth of oneself, with rapid and unsmug  work for advancement, demanding little else of life, might be suitable for the season that we find ourselves in. (Emphasis min, ZYD)

 

I am sorry, but you completely misunderstand Plato, who unlike those others you mention, never yelled at anyone, rather following the lead of his teacher Socrates, he asked them questions, questions designed to bring out the presuppositions and logical consequents of anything which they were proposing, thus bringing them to criticize their own belief systems in ways that they usually reserved for other peoples belief systems and possibly to realize that their belief system was just as silly as those that they rejected.  I have tried to clarify this in an introductory thread on Plato I started a few years ago:

 

On 10/17/2015 at 3:19 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

This post has been a little difficult to write, which is why the delay, but it deals with a very important and much misunderstood aspect of Plato's writings and his writing style.  I have decided to break it up into sections to keep each one simple, but they are important and bring to a point much of what I have written so far.

 

Quote

. . . Plato implies by this discussion that Socrates has a sort of ritual, something crass, simple, and monotonous,³⁵ in order to drive away the uninitiated and drive the true philosopher to truth. There are important hints of this idea in this dialogue's general structure, as well as in other contemporary dialogues. The first book of the Republic is a classic Socratic dialogue, through which the stubborn Thrasymachus is driven, wild with rage, from the conversation, while the others have their appetites whetted by the discussion. The first part of the dialogue, then, works as an initiation ritual for the desirous, much as the initiation rites that were performed as the opening to the Fieusinian mysteries. Similar initiation approaches appear in the Meno, Symposium, and other dialogues. Some further evidence may be brought to this point-, both MePherran and Morgan have interpreted the elenchus, the Socratic form of question-asking in a nearly monotonous and (as is often pointed out by interlocutors) obnoxious manner, as a sort of ritual. p. 23

(Note 35 to the above is interesting ZYD)

35. Ironically, these exact words describe the opinions of most first-time readers of the Socntic dialogues. (Plato in Context: The Republic and Allegory, by Joseph Spencer, Studia Antiqua, Vol 4 No 1, Winter 2005, p. 23-4, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

Back in the early 1980s I was reading Plato in a public place and a guy came up to me and said that he had started reading Plato himself a while back and said “You know, I think I know less now then I did before”. To which my reply was, “Good, you're making real progress” and then I explained to him what I am about to explain here.

Socrates "Ritual" is that of the lesser or prefatory mysteries and these are rituals of purification or "catharsis" as the Greeks would call have called it, from which which get the medical term “cathartic” and derived meanings, such as a “cathartic experience”, in which clears out a lot of junk and resolves issues. Socrates “cathartic” ritual is designed to clear the mind of false and conflicting opinions, and that is why I categorize some of the dialogues as “cathartic”. What I call the “cathartic” dialogues are those which are usually referred to as the “Socratic” ones, supposedly Plato's devoted portrait of his master doing what Socrates did best, which was ask niggling questions, and yes it is certainly that, but there is also a real purpose to it and that is made clear in the following quote from the Sophist:

 

This quote is long enough, but gets the basic point across, anyone can read the quote from the Sophist by following the link and then reading the rest of the post.

 

I hope this clarifies at least one problem with this discussion which is otherwise, like discussions all over the internet, a hopeless muddle of unexamined presuppositions and ignored consequents and, as such a mess way more complex then I care to address.

 

ZYD

[rideforever]

44 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

I hope this clarifies at least one problem with this discussion which is otherwise,

 

It seems from what you said, your goal is to be like Plato and "understand nothing". 
This is really insincere and a misuse of intelligence ... underneath probably it feels really clever to say something like this.

Do you seek truth and exploration or ... entertainment ?

 

There is a famous story that Plato giving one of his grand speeches to the right and famous philosophers decided that he himself would define a Man, to finally give a definition of Man.   He announced that a Man could be defined as a "featherless biped".   Diogenese of Sinope, a rebel philosopher, heard this rubbish and bought a dead chicken from the butcher, plucked all the feathers from it and walked into the Symposium and put it ontop of Plato's podium .... here is your "Man".
Later Plato changed the definition to "featherless biped with fingernails" ... something like that I forget exactly.

What it shows was that Plato was very much concerned with retaining his social status as Great Philosopher , and using philosophy as a means to entertain the crowd with pithy statements .... like the Cave.
Which although completely stupid wrong and leading nowhere, nevertheless got the applause, and the whole crowd could then go home feeling that they had done something useful, although they were all completely brainless.

Nobody was going to stake his comfortable life on anything at all.
Except Diogenese of Sinope.

 

Later Socrates staked his life on something, and lost his life.   

For what ?   To save face in front of the crowd of morons?
This is also stupid.

Not risking your life is stupid.
And giving your life for the donkeys in the crowd is stupid.

 

To become intelligent is to begin to exercise a new muscle, and come up with personal ideas, we can't just cling on to Plato's legs and think that's going to make us intelligent.   It is a work to be done.

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by rideforever