I actually have read the whole thing and I must say I'm impressed with all the dissecting of perceptions and elaboration on how misjudgements happen. But i would like to ask in a humble way as I assume you may have a computer science background, is it a kind of error that pangram says it's 100% ai? I mean i use ai all the time and i come to realize it doesn't generally write in such sophisticated way except in a generic pattern, then i wonder why pangram is showing it like this! I apologize if i said anything offending.
No offense taken. I write everything in this column myself. The ideas, arguments, concepts, and observations are my own. I use AI as a personal editor to clean up my writing, improve clarity, fix grammar, and help me communicate what I'm trying to say more effectively.
One of the challenges of this project is taking the complex, abstract ideas of this topic and making them understandable to a general audience without watering them down. That is a difficult editorial task, and we don't have the resources to hire an actual editor. In lieu of having that resource, I use AI to help with the editorial side of the work. This project was started to publish my personal writings from several years ago. I use it the way I would use an editor. I bring the substance, and it helps me polish the presentation, simplify difficult ideas, and make sure what I'm trying to say comes across as clearly as possible.
I don't use AI to generate my ideas or arguments. The thinking is all my own,
AI simply helps me improve the communication for someone who isn't already familiar with the subject to understand it. I hope that helps.
Many spiritualists are into the naval gazing practice of finding their own divinity, a kind of self-worship. We don't need to worship or do service to God in order to be a good person. Just adopt universal values.
I’m going to proceed to dissect the three sentences you made in your comment because they each say a lot. If I get anything wrong, please feel free to correct me.
First of all, you make a great point when you criticize the tendency to look inward and make our own perception the measure of reality. When the self becomes the final reference point, spirituality can easily become a form of self worship.
But I want to make a distinction with your second sentence, that worship isn’t really about doing service for God as though God has needs. If we’re talking about an ultimate, necessary reality, the relationship is the other way around. We are contingent, the reference point isn’t. Worship is about orienting ourselves toward that objective reference point for our ability to reason and evaluate coherently from first principles, not to quietly presuppose downstream. That orientation may include service, but the service does not benefit the objective. It benefits the contingent, in that it helps the self and other components of the system remain properly oriented toward the objective in order to evaluate coherently.
Finally, your last sentence mentioned to “just adopt universal values.” I think this illustrates a common mistake many of us make, emphasizing one aspect of the six necessary conditions for objectivity rather than examining whether all six are satisfied simultaneously. Don’t take this personally, because we all do this in one way or another. That’s the part I think people often overlook, and it’s because the six conditions are not common knowledge. So we tend to identify one property of objectivity and the. mistake it for the whole structure. Some fixate on singularity and overlook the rest. Likewise, universality is important, but it isn’t sufficient for objectivity at the level of ultimacy. A standard has to be singular, external, universal, nonderived, invariant, and independent. Otherwise, we may have found something widely applicable without establishing why it is objectively binding.
I hope I don’t come across as overthinking this, but your comment genuinely made me think, and I wanted to unpack a few things you said. Again, if I misunderstood anything, please feel free to correct me. I appreciate the opportunity to think through it, so thank you for commenting!
I actually have read the whole thing and I must say I'm impressed with all the dissecting of perceptions and elaboration on how misjudgements happen. But i would like to ask in a humble way as I assume you may have a computer science background, is it a kind of error that pangram says it's 100% ai? I mean i use ai all the time and i come to realize it doesn't generally write in such sophisticated way except in a generic pattern, then i wonder why pangram is showing it like this! I apologize if i said anything offending.
No offense taken. I write everything in this column myself. The ideas, arguments, concepts, and observations are my own. I use AI as a personal editor to clean up my writing, improve clarity, fix grammar, and help me communicate what I'm trying to say more effectively.
One of the challenges of this project is taking the complex, abstract ideas of this topic and making them understandable to a general audience without watering them down. That is a difficult editorial task, and we don't have the resources to hire an actual editor. In lieu of having that resource, I use AI to help with the editorial side of the work. This project was started to publish my personal writings from several years ago. I use it the way I would use an editor. I bring the substance, and it helps me polish the presentation, simplify difficult ideas, and make sure what I'm trying to say comes across as clearly as possible.
I don't use AI to generate my ideas or arguments. The thinking is all my own,
AI simply helps me improve the communication for someone who isn't already familiar with the subject to understand it. I hope that helps.
Got it. Thanks for explaining.
Many spiritualists are into the naval gazing practice of finding their own divinity, a kind of self-worship. We don't need to worship or do service to God in order to be a good person. Just adopt universal values.
I’m going to proceed to dissect the three sentences you made in your comment because they each say a lot. If I get anything wrong, please feel free to correct me.
First of all, you make a great point when you criticize the tendency to look inward and make our own perception the measure of reality. When the self becomes the final reference point, spirituality can easily become a form of self worship.
But I want to make a distinction with your second sentence, that worship isn’t really about doing service for God as though God has needs. If we’re talking about an ultimate, necessary reality, the relationship is the other way around. We are contingent, the reference point isn’t. Worship is about orienting ourselves toward that objective reference point for our ability to reason and evaluate coherently from first principles, not to quietly presuppose downstream. That orientation may include service, but the service does not benefit the objective. It benefits the contingent, in that it helps the self and other components of the system remain properly oriented toward the objective in order to evaluate coherently.
Finally, your last sentence mentioned to “just adopt universal values.” I think this illustrates a common mistake many of us make, emphasizing one aspect of the six necessary conditions for objectivity rather than examining whether all six are satisfied simultaneously. Don’t take this personally, because we all do this in one way or another. That’s the part I think people often overlook, and it’s because the six conditions are not common knowledge. So we tend to identify one property of objectivity and the. mistake it for the whole structure. Some fixate on singularity and overlook the rest. Likewise, universality is important, but it isn’t sufficient for objectivity at the level of ultimacy. A standard has to be singular, external, universal, nonderived, invariant, and independent. Otherwise, we may have found something widely applicable without establishing why it is objectively binding.
I hope I don’t come across as overthinking this, but your comment genuinely made me think, and I wanted to unpack a few things you said. Again, if I misunderstood anything, please feel free to correct me. I appreciate the opportunity to think through it, so thank you for commenting!