[MrMcCall]

That sentence literally makes no sense, obviously coming from the spoiled mind of a coddled rich kid.

The fact is that you chose to write what you wrote, for good or ill. I spent all day yesterday explaining the truth of our moral existence to y'all here, conversing with a very fine fellow who has a bit of knowledge. It brought me a joy that no one else on this site has ever felt. It was electric, sans drugs of any kind, and only a couple of sips of coffee all day, which is very rare for me.

No, there's a force within you that will work its damnedest to get you to quit reading it before you get to the bottom. It starts in that post about Maria Konnakova's poetry article, but that's not the important part, or even my grand-reply (reply to my initial reply). Most people don't have the intellectual curiosity and bravery to read such utterly new information, but if you can read drivel from AS, you can make through one (rather long) page of mine.

I triple-dog dare ya ;-)

And remember, ignorance of the truth is a human vice that we must fight and defeat, in order to choose the better path, the Path of Love. Giving in to ignorance is a choice between good and evil, my friend. I hope you choose well, but you'll likely choose to rebel against the truth, and instead keep believing the lies that have been told to you, which is our body's monkey-inheritance.

Happy choosing! I truly wish you all success and happiness in this world, but that latter one is dependent upon our learning and manifesting the truth, my friend.

[raddan]

Is choice a fact? The point of the quote is that we do not know. It SEEMS like we have free will but this could be an illusion. Where do our desires and motivations come from? I have always had a strong desire to build things, either physical objects or mental ones (like code). These desires push me to make choices in my life, like pursuing the career I have. But did I choose my motivations? I’m not sure. I don’t remember choosing them. They are just feelings I have, and in some cases, can’t remember not having.

I am a scientist. Truth has a specific meaning to me. I’m not sure we share the same definition. That does not make either of us “evil.”

[MrMcCall]

My friend, what you are saying is that you do not know. You have no idea what I know, or even what I can know.

Truth is all that exists in the universe. We are the information processors of this universe and "knowing thyself" is part of our design, but, because of our free will, we can choose to remain ignorant. And, by knowing ourselves (long process), we also learn other things about the universe. At some point, we can actually have access to the very deepest truths that can be known by human beings. (There do remain some topics that are unknowable, but we can never exhaust the knowable, so simply knowing that some specific unknowables exists shall have to suffice.)

Our motivations are a combination of our physical predilections and our cultural and personal upbringing. No, we're not going to have a memory of our every motivation, but we are capable of at least gaining an understanding of what they are currently.

If you wish for the truth as explained by the "Sufi Science of Soul Transformation", follow the comment dialogue I referenced above. It requires a brave curiosity and ability to integrate very unfamiliar concepts; it is really akin to how Eugene Parker's solar wind theory shocked the world of astronomy, but on a far more important topic.

To really "know" if fire is dangerously hot, you have to test it; no one else's experiment is enough to truly convince those of us who have any skepticism within us.

It is the same with the spiritual path, except that we contain a force inside us that tries its best to convince us that remaining ignorant to the possibility that self-evolution into total compassion is not only possible, but is the best way forward for each of us. The only way to escape that ignorance is to light the flame and feel its effects, and it is each our choice. Most people are simply content with what is familiar to them, to their heritage, to their cultures, to our intrinsic ignorant nature.

The lack of compassion in this world is why it has been so historically f_cked, and getting ever more so, in many ways.

Evil is borne of selfishness that refuses universal compassion. Those Nazi death camp guards weren't killing anyone, but they sure contributed to the evil. We are all choosing sides, even if by default via our cultural inertias. We must choose to begin transforming ourselves into universally compassionate human beings, or else we have sided with either the deliberately evil or those callous to the evil they cause, which is a kind of evil. Entering the Path of Love is the only way to see this fact clearly and know how we are all choosing sides, whether we know it or not. The default value of a .NET int variable is always 0; you must change it to a 1 to make it a 1. To be not evil (in some measure, however by default) means to enter the Path of Love deliberately, because our default state is willful ignorance, and the masses upon masses of ignorant people are ruining this beautiful garden.

I wish you well, my fellow scientist (I have been such a one since 1st grade). It's your choice, the same as the rest of us.

Here's a link to the beginning of our dialogue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42317164

"The Way goes in." --Rumi

[FrustratedMonky]

What you present as a grand narrative of self-discovery, truth, and compassion is, in many ways, an idealistic interpretation of human existence that oversimplifies complex realities. While I can appreciate the depth of your convictions, the perspective you offer assumes a universal applicability of your framework—one that may not align with everyone's experience, philosophy, or epistemological approach.

To begin, claiming that "truth is all that exists in the universe" reduces the richness of existence to a monolithic pursuit. Truth, as a concept, is subjective and shaped by individual, cultural, and temporal contexts. What you call "truth" may resonate with you, but it risks dismissing alternative ways of understanding the universe, such as those rooted in skepticism, pragmatism, or even nihilism. These frameworks are equally valid, as they acknowledge the limitations of human cognition and the constructed nature of meaning.

The notion that self-knowledge leads to universal truths about the cosmos assumes a direct correlation between introspection and external understanding. While self-awareness is undoubtedly valuable, it does not guarantee access to the deepest truths of the universe. Human cognition is bounded by our biology, sensory limitations, and the constraints of language and culture. We are not omniscient processors; we are flawed, interpretive beings navigating a sea of uncertainty.

Your emphasis on "universal compassion" as the sole antidote to evil is admirable but simplistic. Human motivations are multifaceted, and what you describe as "evil" often emerges from systemic, historical, and material conditions rather than individual moral failings. Compassion, while transformative, cannot alone dismantle entrenched power structures or resolve the complex web of human suffering. Moreover, framing those who do not embrace your "Path of Love" as ignorant or complicit in evil undermines the diversity of human experience and the validity of alternative ethical frameworks.

Finally, your analogy comparing spiritual transformation to testing fire conflates subjective spiritual experiences with objective physical phenomena. The former is deeply personal and cannot be universally measured or validated. Not everyone will, or should, approach spirituality or self-evolution in the way you propose. Placing the burden of moral alignment on individuals rather than acknowledging the role of collective and systemic forces risks perpetuating a kind of spiritual elitism.

In summary, while your call for self-awareness, compassion, and transformation is compelling, it oversimplifies human complexity and diversity. We are not all on the same path, nor should we be. True respect for the plurality of human experience requires acknowledging that there are many ways to navigate existence—each as valid as your own.

[MrMcCall]

[BEGINNING OF PART 2 OF 2]

> Moreover, framing those who do not embrace your "Path of Love" as ignorant or complicit in evil undermines the diversity of human experience and the validity of alternative ethical frameworks.

There is no higher ethical framework than that which espouses universal compassion.

And, yes, each of us who remains ignorant of the truth of the importance of compassionate service to mankind, is themselves harming the education of humanity, which is a form of evil, albeit small in comparison to the brutality of dictators.

The key understanding here is that we each sit on the knife's edge, and we are each choosing compassion or one of the myriad opposites, each of which involves a degradation of the whole, even if it's in a small area of influence, or even without malice.

You can't wipe your ass with your hand, not wash it, and then traipse all over the mall touching stuff. That ignorance will cause real harm, however unintentional.

> Finally, your analogy comparing spiritual transformation to testing fire conflates subjective spiritual experiences with objective physical phenomena.

No, you refuse to understand that the spiritual path is the same for every human being, even though there are different forms that get us there. We must transmute our soul's 19 vices into their corresponding virtues, by degrees, over time, with the help of our Creator, in order to become vehicles for compassion. This is a universal human developmental potential.

> The former is deeply personal and cannot be universally measured or validated.

It can be, but only by the person who has begun the transformation, as well as their teacher or other persons of high attainment. Just as our bodies have a developmental progression where different stages entail different abilities, so, too, does the spiritual progression towards love. Before we begin it, we have "eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, and hearts that do not understand".

We all have souls that start out with some combo of the 19 vices operant, per our personal predilections. We all start out equal in sum, but with a different bar chart of the different weights. Sum any person's weights together and they will be equal, but one person will have more hate, another more greed. With 19 pairs of vices and virtues, that's a lot of possible combos. That's why it's so easy for our lower selves to be able to point our finger at another person and think, "I'm better than that other person. Look at their X." It's the multi-spiderman theme, but one spidey has a different vice in just as great a quantity as the one our internal voice points out in others.

> Not everyone will, or should, approach spirituality or self-evolution in the way you propose.

Well, we have to contact or Creator to begin the process. There's no escaping that any more than saying a person can graduate from college without matriculating first. Like I said, it's our universal spiritual developmental progression. There are different forms, different prayers, different practices, but beyond those trifling, unimportant differences, we all have to connect to our Creator, find our path, and then do the work required to self-evolve our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors, in order to transmute our souls' vices into their corresponding virtues.

The key is that each person's path is determined by the Creator. Upon contacting it, we will be guided to whatever path is required. It's never for another person to determine. Rumi says, "The Way goes in."

> Placing the burden of moral alignment on individuals rather than acknowledging the role of collective and systemic forces risks perpetuating a kind of spiritual elitism.

A culture can only level-up by its members leveling-up; that's just systems analysis. I'm not placing any kind of burden on anyone any more than Watson and Crick placed a limit on the shape of DNA.

Elitism wasn't the reason for or effect of Einstein explaining how mass and the time are interrelated. The spiritual path is simply our complex reality, just one that cannot be verified by our physical sciences, just as it fails to explain Dark Matter or Energy.

[It just sounds like your inner voice doesn't want anything to do with your self-evolving yourself beyond its ignorance. And that is exactly the case. It's defending itself from the ego-death that results from the spiritual path, and it's doing it like hell. That's precisely why the world is the way it is, and also why mis- and disinformation is so deadly, because until one enters the Path of Love one cannot clearly comprehend reality, much less "know thyself". "Their minds are confused with confusion," as Bob Marley said.]

> In summary, while your call for self-awareness, compassion, and transformation is compelling, it oversimplifies human complexity and diversity. We are not all on the same path, nor should we be. True respect for the plurality of human experience requires acknowledging that there are many ways to navigate existence—each as valid as your own.

All our ways to navigate are valid, because we can choose to live and believe however and whatever we want, because we all have an unfettered free will, and we must each respect each others' choices, so long as they aren't harming/oppressing others. But most people's beliefs are simply based on bad information and assumptions. We live in an objective reality and there is truth and half-truth and utter bullsh_t.

And the fact of the matter is that I know flat-earthers have some just plain incorrect beliefs. Like my explaining this to you, though, those of use who know can try to explain the truth, but it's your choice to accept it or not.

If you prayed about it, you would get the answer, but you don't pray, do you? Or believe in prayer, right? Or am I wrong about that. I doubt it. You are intelligent about the physical world, but don't you want to know where the Dark Matter is or the purpose of Dark Energy? You can't find those answers by studying the physical universe, you can only find hints like the anomalous galactic momenta. To find the answers, you must follow Rumi's Wisdom and follow the trail, "The Way goes in."

I love you. Thanks for your detailed, intelligent response, but your arguments are no different than a flat-earther arguing with Galileo.

[END OF PART 2 OF 2]

[MrMcCall]

[BEGINNING OF PART 1 OF 2]

> What you present as a grand narrative of self-discovery, truth, and compassion is, in many ways, an idealistic interpretation of human existence that oversimplifies complex realities.

I am only presenting reality, my friend. The simplicity of the explanation is due to its nature, which follows Occam's Razor in its own resplendence.

> While I can appreciate the depth of your convictions, the perspective you offer assumes a universal applicability of your framework—one that may not align with everyone's experience, philosophy, or epistemological approach.

A student of Einstein did not care -- and shouldn't've cared -- about whether other folks have alternate theories.

Eugene Parker, much derided by his contemporaries, was not "assuming" anything; he was merely presenting the truth. No, the truths I present here is not grounded in our physical world's science of the matter, energy and the laws that interrelate them, but instead encompasses our multi-dimensional nature as human beings, with a body, soul, conscience, and free will, with the mysterious mind at our disposal.

> To begin, claiming that "truth is all that exists in the universe" reduces the richness of existence to a monolithic pursuit.

I never said it was monolithic. It has many facets, but seeking truth in a universe that is nothing but truth, is a singular pursuit within it. Besides, you believe that this physical world is all that exists, correct?

> Truth, as a concept, is subjective and shaped by individual, cultural, and temporal contexts.

No, by definition, truth is objective and a quality of the universe, unfazed by whether or not we believe it to be true.

Only perspective is shaped by the factors you mentioned, and they do, indeed, shape our it. But perspective of the truth can be accurate or inaccurate, and what I'm saying is that your perspective is flawed, like most of humanity at this moment.

> What you call "truth" may resonate with you, but it risks dismissing alternative ways of understanding the universe, such as those rooted in skepticism, pragmatism, or even nihilism.

I am dismissing them, because they are not true. You don't dismiss the flat-earthers? I do, and rightly so, because I've seen time-lapse pictures taken through a telescope of other planets rotating, with moons rotating about them!

> These frameworks are equally valid, as they acknowledge the limitations of human cognition and the constructed nature of meaning.

As to limits of our cognition, it is precisely your denying the truth that is limiting your cognition, not mine. This is exactly like the flat-earthers do by refusing to acknowledge science because they haven't done enough math or looked through a telescope at a planet. Your and their claims do not limit my cognition. The history of science is rife with folks like Boltzmann, Einstein, and Parker whose sound and accurate scientific discoveries challenged the perspectives of their day with a deeper understanding of the universe around them. Be not like their critics, who all "fell flat", to put it in the words of Eugene Parker, one of my heroes.

> The notion that self-knowledge leads to universal truths about the cosmos assumes a direct correlation between introspection and external understanding.

First, I'm not assuming anything, you are.

Second, the key point to introspection is that it leads us to our Creator, Who then opens the doors of perception to us, by degrees, when we commit to becoming a selflessly compassionate human being. The honest introspection leads us to the door, and our seeking opens the doors for us.

> Human cognition is bounded by our biology, sensory limitations, and the constraints of language and culture.

Here you are, claiming you know the limits of human nature. We are not just this physical body, we are much more. Even our body's sensory abilities are beyond this physical body. You think that you are nothing but your body, so you have limited yourself. In my love for you, I am offering you the path to more, which you are fully allowed to deny, without denigration by me, only love. But your denying the truth only limits you, not any of the rest of humanity.

> We are not omniscient processors;

No, only our Creator is omniscient and It is the Prime Mover, but the universe It created is the primary processor we deal with and are a part of. You could say it's our primary interface.

> we are flawed,

We are indeed flawed, every single one of us, at least at first, but we are also created with the ability to achieve perfection, with the help of our Creator, that wishes but does not demand that we all choose to love one another. Loving It is an integral part of the mechanism that facilitates the cleansing and purification of our soul's flaws. (Loving It does not add one jot to It, nor is it due to some "needy" aspect. No, that practice is solely, like all that exists in this universe, for our benefit and happiness. What could we possibly add to the Creator of space, time, and vibrational dimension -- all that has ever and will ever exist?)

> interpretive beings navigating a sea of uncertainty.

Yes, we interpret the universe around us, with our senses and our mind. And our interpretations grow more depth and accuracy when we make progress along the spiritual path, which I term the "Path of Love".

And, yes, life is uncertain, isn't it wonderful?

> Your emphasis on "universal compassion" as the sole antidote to evil is admirable but simplistic.

There is no other fundamental perspective that can determine every antidote, for all our problems are due to our having not prioritized compassion in the first place. The methods and means to the specific solution's details will vary, but if the root is not compassion, there will be no lasting solution.

> Human motivations are multifaceted, and what you describe as "evil" often emerges from systemic, historical, and material conditions rather than individual moral failings.

All of what you mention are caused by human beings, moral human beings, flawed moral human beings, just in aggregate, acting selfishly instead of selflessly, callously instead of compassionately.

> Compassion, while transformative, cannot alone dismantle entrenched power structures or resolve the complex web of human suffering.

I didn't say it would be a gentle compassion. WWII taught us the lesson that laying down for the brutal aggressors will only result in you getting obliterated. Of course, it is still happening in many places across the world on this very day.

No, our love must be properly fierce when dealing with the wantonly selfish and brutal oppressors. They must be stripped of their power to harm others, because our compassion for the oppressed must be of a different flavor than our compassion for the oppressors. We must be as merciful as we can, but they must stop harming others. It is our duty.

[END OF PART 1 OF 2]