Hang on...I thought forcing the agenda is identical to intentionally creating a person - you’re saying they are two different events? How are they differentiated? — Possibility

Don't get your question. Forcing the agenda is creating a someone who is procreated. By their procreation, one is creating a state of affairs where that person must comply or die.

Onto who now — Possibility

Once a person is created, it is that someone I am referring to.

How can you prove this assertion? The agenda is a fundamentally illogical framework. A strawman and a scapegoat.

And then there is the concept of ‘someone’ you claim is constrained by a forced agenda into being. Is it not your argument that this someone as not-being is more valuable than being? How so, if they are not ‘beyond the agenda’? — Possibility

But isn’t this ‘someone else’ you value above the agenda just another vague abstraction? How does this ‘someone else’ have so much value unactualised? Where are your concrete examples of this ‘someone else prevented’? — Possibility

No, rather you are strawmanning my argument. There is no person being "prevented" before procreation. I didn't talk about a "not-being" that is more valuable than being. I didn't say that where you quoted me, but you implied it.. So you are just bringing up the old "non-identity" argument of a metaphysics I have not proclaimed.. Rather it is thus:

You, the already alive person, can not cause (aka can prevent) collateral damage. You can also not cause a profound life decision of a forced political agenda onto someone. That is it. There is no "someone else" involved here. It is all about already existing people not doing something.

But you’ll just judge all of this productivity as ‘following the agenda’... I know. I’m not suggesting we all become economically productive. It’s just one small example of what I mean by potentiality. — Possibility

You are correct, I am going to judge it as thus, as I expected the whole time.. You were going to use production, family/friends, and some metaphysical enlightenment as your examples of value and potential.

What I’m saying is that we can perceive potentiality everywhere - and we have no need to actualise the large majority of it - including more people - in order to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. We just need to stop trying to reduce our perception of reality to concreteness, as if that’s all reality can be. — Possibility

Again, elusive nothingness phrases like "reduce perception of reality to concreteness if that's all reality can be".. You still don't make any real claims.. It's almost like talking to a bot that was programmed to output "potentiality" and "value" in various philosophically-seeming ways, but on closer inspection means nothing.

No one needs to collaborate, connection, or be aware. Again, if I make a game and I tell you, "If you don't like, it just become more immersed in its various ways to collaborate".. .You can definitely call me an asshole for gaslighting you.. That is the crux of what's wrong with your argument.. You are simply (very slighly and discreetly) reiterating the forced agenda with a kinder machine gun hand.. if you will. Peaceful forced collaboration is still forced collaboration.. It need not be violent or even disharmonious.

I think it is an open question how much are things ascribed to him rather than things he took to be true of himself. — Fooloso4

Well, and that is the main argument we are discussing, right? So my whole post earlier was about whether Son of Man as a redeeming angel could have been a realistic view in 1st century Judaic thought, and I believe it was. I don't even think it would have, by default, even be opposed by Pharisaic thought, pace evidence in Enoch 3 and the Talmud's description of Metatron and ascent literature. In other words, were there certain "trends" at various times in Jewish history for how the Messiah was to present himself? I think there is good argument for yes.

Look at examples like Abraham Abulafia, and Solomon Molko, two kabbalist-mystical type messiah claimants versus Bar Kochba or David Reubeni, two militaristic-type claimants.

Even though Rashi, a highly revered Rabbi of France, is much later in Rabbinic Judaism (1000s CE), he may have preserved earlier traditions with his commentary on Daniel where he indeed stated that the one like a son of man is indeed the Messiah.. Then in the Babylonian Talmud itself you have this passage:

In Sanhedrin 98a of the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Alexandri tries to solve the contradiction of Daniel's vision and Zechariah's vision of the Messiah.. He said that if the Messiah is deserved then he comes from clouds in Heaven like in Daniel, and if not deserved, riding on a donkey like in Zechariah.. You can clearly see the writers trying to make Jesus a messiah for all the en vogue conceptions as such.. Probably from traditions where these rabbis got their traditions.. So it is clear based on this evidence that the one like a son of man was indeed interpreted as the Messiah even in Rabbinical Judaism, as is shown in the Talmud and Rashi.

Minimising the variability of perceived potential through moralism is the main agent of the agenda, and you’re only contributing to it with your ‘injustice of using the child’ argument. You’re not making any impact, you’re deep in it and looking for someone else to blame for your debilitating fear of what’s beyond this agenda. And then you reframe your perspective of everyone else’s position as either on your side or opposing you in some narrow moralistic stance as if the truth according to Schop1 is all there is. — Possibility

There is nothing "beyond the agenda". Survival, dissatisfaction_____Contingent suffering.

Enough with the strawmen - I asked you why you don’t want to die, NOT to construct some argument for the value of being, but because it is your fear of pain and the unknown that keeps you from simply throwing out this crappy agenda - one that values BEING as the constraints of our ultimate potentiality - and finding your own way without it. The agenda plays on your fears, and you let it. — Possibility

Don't even know what you mean. Too much vague abstraction.. So the agenda is the decision that someone else must live in the socio-cultural-economic-political, historically-derived (situatedness) way of life needed for survival and satisfying dissatisfaction (boredom). There are no creative solutions around it.. Already discussed communes, tribal societies, and all the other arrangements.. And Buddhism, the "internal" arrangement of the mind, if you will. I explained how there are no escape hatches. Your vagueness surrounding the idea of "Potentiality" with no real concrete examples, just speaks to the fact that there are indeed no real solutions. Prevention rather than escape is all I'm saying.

You know that there’s more to your potential than your limited being alone will ever realise. But what you don’t seem to recognise is that every time you take a chance and choose other than this agenda in interacting with others - because you can - you draw attention to everyone’s capacity to do the same. The agenda says avoid boredom at all cost - but it is in choosing to embrace boredom that we learn more about our potential regardless of productive action. The agenda says procreate - but it is in choosing not to create another limited being who must develop awareness of potentiality all over again, that we are left to focus on increasing awareness of this potentiality we already perceive as valuable beyond its limited capacity to BE. — Possibility

So this is all convoluted language that says nothing. Concrete examples or this is talking in circles to look like there's a there there. The more concrete though, the more I will show you there is nothing, so perhaps you are afraid to?

So, what use does this unrealised value or potentiality have, if we can’t BE all of that value ourselves? We can use it to increase others’ awareness of their own potentiality and value, which ultimately increases their awareness of ours. We can refrain from judging others by their current state of being, and instead perceive their far greater potentiality as their real, valuable existence, despite how they might appear. — Possibility

But again, WHAT does "potentiality" mean in this case? It usually leads back to a) Productive achievements b) Capacity for some metaphysical Enlightenment

Productive achievements can be economic production, mastery of hobbies, starting charity, contributing to the tribe, whatever..

Enlightenment can be some sort of spiritual awakening, aka Buddhist Nirvana..

I mean the third common one is relationship-building.. that might be the one you're going to use.. Friendship, connection, yadayada.. That's the one, right? There's nothing you are going to say that's going to shatter my foundation and realize what a silly person I was.. Especially not convoluted, abstract talk about potentiality and connections..

even though you know by your own experience that you are merely limited BY being, and that your perceivable value is so much more. — Possibility

Perceivable value?? Huh??

So we can talk about potentiality and value, and even how it relates to antinatalism and pessimism - but if you continue to reduce your perception of my potentiality to mere being while upholding your own perspective as the highest moral value, then we are done here, because your self-righteous attitude is wearing thin... — Possibility

Yeah same to you? I mean, I can't talk to you because you choose to use self-referential, vague language like potential and value.. without any context or definition.

What do you mean IN CONCRETE TERMS of "Perception of my potentiality to mere being".. What the hell?

Again, WHAT is the potentiality?? For WHAT? It's all circular talk and no actual meaning conveyed. It's like the soda water of philosophy.. there is a hint of a flavor of something there, but there is no real flavor beyond that hint. It's words bereft of sense. In Wittgenstein-speak, you are playing a language game I am not privy to and thus we are not speaking the same language.. You are not translating so we will be at crossroads until you explain your language game.

If you are just re-creating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and (middle-class trope) of "Self-actualization", just say it. We can also read 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and What Color is Your Parachute?, afterwards (please read sarcasm there).

Yes, but of course this is all basically accepted as consensus.. The question is to what extent the apocalyptic angels were widespread in all Jewish circles. For example, did Pharisees put a lot of stock in angels. Though I acknowledge the fact that the Talmud was written much later, I think the passages about Metatron in the Talmud and Enoch 3 show that it indeed was thoroughly part of most sects by the 1st century.. not just pockets of apocalyptic/Essenic movements. These were major themes there were diffused throughout.

I think there has been a tendency in modern times to ensure that emphasis on angels were simply a Christian thing.. But it could have come from the same Judaic pool. The very major difference became when groups started separating the commandments (Ezra/Nehemiah's centrality of Mosaic Law of Second Temple Judaism reconstruction), from the mystical.

This is especially expected when Jewish Christianity (30-135 CE, very small early followers and family based near Jerusalem) became Gentile Christianity (timeline overlapping with Jewish Christianity from Paul.. 50 CE-325 CE and beyond), and the covenantal/commandment nature of an ethnic-based religion of the people of Judah (Judaism) gave way to universalist tendencies that were created from the synthesis of various figures like Paul and the Book of John, and early Church Fathers in general, creating the new religion, layer upon layer.. to become the basis for full-fledged "Christianity" representative of the Nicene Creed. Simply put, ethnic-based commandments were not useful to Gentiles who had no use for it.. Much easier to retain and emphasize were the mystical elements as influenced by Daniel/Enoch/Apocalyptic literature....

We can maybe speculate:

Sadducees...very little mystical influence.. commandments were central, but most purity laws were simply belonging to Priestly class.. more Epicurean version of reality as the here and now.. perhaps simply pre-Second Temple Judaic ideas of God's efficacy only matters in THIS life...makes sense for the Elite who were more interested in current power structures that maintained their authority).

Pharisees...a moderate amount of mystical influence... commandments were central, purity laws to be followed by all Jews (Ezra's Constitution), mystical elements influenced by Zoroastrianism/Persia.. End of Times, resurrection, angels, souls, etc.

Essenes/apocalyptic groups... varying views of commandments from more extreme versions than Pharisees (Dead Sea Scroll sect which may have just been a breakoff Sadducees that disagreed with lax version in Jerusalem), to more emphasis on mystical elements only..

I believe the mythos of the mystical elements (such as hierarchies of angels) had such a hold on certain populations, that rabbis feared that people would only be preoccupied with these speculations and not the commandments. That is why they condemned the average person from speculating what is above and below and beginning and end of time. Note, that they didn't deny such things, they just didn't want it to overtake the commandments and their centrality to Second Temple (and post Temple) Judaic practice. They still held such views as sacred and practiced Merkabah "ascent" mystical practice whereby they tried to ascend the heavens, encountering certain angels, for some theosophical vision of the Divine Chariot.

That being said, I think Jesus fit into this broader Jewish context.. He had studied the Law and major debates to some extent (possibly Hillelite Pharisee), but was also influenced by the major trend of angeology.. So the Son of Man imagery was useful to identify with.. This was the redeemer and protector angel of Israel, come to show man the Final Days.. Surely, if a man sees himself as a represenative (in some way) of this angel, then this gives an even more urgent impetus on the messiah's part.. In a way, Jesus is trying to check all the boxes that were popular at the time for what the messiah was to be..

1) Descended from David (check.. even if that can never be confirmed.. but it couldn't be denied! At the least, Joseph was probably not a Kohein or Levite, which means he could just be Judah/Israelite)

2) Had proper view of the Law [of course contingent to being convinced by it].. (check, Hillel-style common man view of commandments.. You can heal on the Sabbath, etc.).

3) Heralding the Kingdom of Heaven and trying to appeal to the poor and Lost Sheep of Israel..

4) Challenging corrupt forces and Empires that were controlling Israel and Jerusalem.. check

5) Son of Man redeemer come to herald the End of Times..Check!

There are various other ways too..

Of course, Jesus died and the End of Times did not occur and this posed an existential dillemma for a group centered around a charismatic leader.

Anyways, I just wanted to highlight some of these points in how Jesus fit into the context of his time.

First you attempt to bypass Judaism and go straight from neoPlatonism to Jesus. When that failed you attempt to make Judaism indistinguishable from other religions. — Fooloso4

Yep.. We have to be careful to understand the stability and solidity of ideas in the right context of their time period. By the time of the Second Temple, Judaism went from a henotheistic religion with heterogenous traditions to a very strong covenantal based/commandment based one. This is the Judaism Jesus would know. Retroactive mythologizing had already taken place by the time of the return from Babylon as to how Israelite history was perceived. It was to be perceived as a covenant that goes back to the figure of Moses, with commandments, to an immaterial godhead, with pilgrimage festivals to a central Temple location in Jerusalem, etc. Except in variations like Philo's clearly Hellenistic influences in the diaspora, this was the core of Judaic thought.

You must remember the context within the story is that Daniel is basically enslaved in Babylon and having a dream vision.. Thus it makes sense to talk about evil empires (the beasts) falling away and the holy people of Most High (my guess is the Israelites, or the righteous amongst the Israelites) will rule forever at the End of Days kind of thing..

So again, "that like a son of man" could be simply "Israel" or "the Kingdom of Israel". However, in Enoch 1 we see Son of Man as an actual character.. Most historians believe this to be pre-Christian.. but must have had a huge influence if it was on the proto-group..

[Chapter 48]

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days.

3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

4 He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.

5 All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.

6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for evermore.

7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits: For in his name they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.

8 In these days downcast in countenance shall the kings of the earth have become, And the strong who possess the land because of the works of their hands, For on the day of their anguish and affliction they shall not (be able to) save themselves. And I will give them over into the hands of Mine elect: As straw in the fire so shall they burn before the face of the holy: As lead in the water shall they sink before the face of the righteous, And no trace of them shall any more be found. 10 And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth, And before them they shall fall and not rise again: And there shall be no one to take them with his hands and raise them: For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed. The name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed. — Enoch

Also, Son of Man in the form of Metatron (not just Enoch as the first two books but the name of the angelic being itself is associated with Metatron), is seen in Enoch 3.. Enoch 3 is written much later and is interesting in that it is RABBINICAL in nature.. That is to say, the ascent to heaven is through a famous Talmudic Rabbi..:

Rabbi Ishmael said :

(1) When I ascended on high to behold the vision of the Merkaba and had entered the six Halls, one
within the other:

(2) as soon as I reached the door of the seventh Hall I stood still in prayer before the Holy One,
blessed be He, and, lifting up my eyes on high (i.e. towards the Divine Majesty), I said :

(3) " Lord of the Universe, I pray thee, that the merit of Aaron, the son of Amram, the lover of peace
and pursuer of peace, who received the crown of priesthood from Thy Glory on the mount of Sinai,
be valid for me in this hour, so that Qafsiel*, the prince, and the angels with him may not get power
over me nor throw me down from the heavens ".

(4) Forthwith the Holy One, blessed be He, sent to me Metatron, his Servant ('Ebed) the angel, the
Prince of the Presence, and he, spreading his wings, with great joy came to meet me so as to save me
from their hand.

(5) And he took me by his hand in their sight, saying to me: "Enter in peace before the high and
exalted King3 and behold the picture of the Merkaba".

(6) Then I entered the seventh Hall, and he led me to the camp(s) of Shekina and placed me before
6the Holy One, blessed be He, to behold the Merkaba.

(7) As soon as the princes of the Merkaba and the flaming Seraphim perceived me, they fixed their
eyes upon me. Instantly trembling and shuddering seized me and I fell down and was benumbed by
the radiant image of their eyes and the splendid appearance of their faces; until the Holy One,
blessed be He, rebuked them, saying:



(8) "My servants, my Seraphim, my Kerubim and my 'Ophanniml Cover ye your eyes before
Ishmael, my son, my friend, my beloved one and my glory, that he tremble not nor shudder ! "

(9) Forthwith Metatron the Prince of the Presence, came and restored my spiritand put me upon my
feet. — Enoch 3

Is 2 a redaction reflecting later beliefs? — Fooloso4

Hey, very well could be. But it was still angels visiting man.. I think the trend towards the end of the Bible and post-Biblical (apocrypha and Merkabah literature), was for Man to visit the Divine Realm, passing through various angels to get to the highest echelons.. But again, perhaps there were ideas of going back and forth... I could be off with my speculation.. It is purely piecing together possibilities. Son of Man perhaps was simply a metaphor for Israel or Mankind.. But there does seem traditions in various areas as Son of Man referring to a protector Angel..

“While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

The Interpretation of the Dream
15 “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this.

“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’

19 “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

28 “This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.” — Daniel 7

Why don’t you want to die? — Possibility

Fear of pain and unknown. Stop falling for cliched anti antinatalists arguments if “If you don’t kill your self, life must be good or you must be holding onto something”.. Antinatalism doesn’t entail promortalism. You’re better than that. I don’t deny that it is natural for people to fear death. But don’t mistake that for proof that life is thus good. Hope you aren’t making that vapid claim that even a Five year old can break apart.

Then we recognised that procreation allowed us to transcend what was ultimately a limited BEING - — Possibility

Poetic way of origin story. People liked to fuck and made abstract reasonings after, but yeah prolonging the tribal lineage and family lineage was one of the stories.

to collaborate beyond our own BEING and achieve something together that we couldn’t manage alone: potential or value beyond our capacity to survive. — Possibility

Right, just because it’s in the name of survival doesn’t take away the injustice of using the child. It again is a political move on behalf of the child.

This AGENDA is then just an attempt to structure potential and value as a set of norms to keep this variability of being to a minimum. Otherwise, anything goes, and chaos reigns. So long as there is only one ‘correct’ or ‘moral’ set of behaviours able to maximise our perceived potential as a human being, we will focus on this rather than on the uniqueness of our own potentiality. The problem is that the only way to minimise this variability is by prioritising inefficient aspects of BEING such as procreation, self and survival - which limit individual potential. This takes the focus off our capacity to maximise awareness of the diverse potentiality behind any iteration of being. — Possibility

Ugh you sound like a New Age version of Apokrisis bullshit about constraint and degrees of freedom..just say Peircean triadic form, and I’ll say BINGO!

Just because a system is created for people to individually pursue their interests whilst maximally collaborating in the market place for survival, doesn’t solve the problems I discuss. The dissatisfaction behind human motivation..this CANNOT be minimized. Buddhism attempts to at most which is why Schops affinity for it. But not important, it doesn’t negate the deep injustice of assuming other people should join the system or ;even more presumptuous and messianic) MUST join the system. THAT is the original sin placed upon each humans head. The idea that we must value constraints because they are necessary to prevent chaos and maximize freedom is lukewarm utilitarian optimism thinking. It literally is just doubling down on the current form of the agenda..giving an extra holiday for your worker or one less ready reason to fire them, or having a nicer HR dept doesn’t solve anything. Either does more freedom to pursue this or that whilst contributing to the group. It’s like you want to manage the intractable existential situation with a management symposium. Or on the other side, having the worker find a better self-help book to cope with managing the system... C'mon.. Management as philosophy now :roll:

So what to do as individuals already born into the system. As I said we are already fucked, but I say take the Stance of Rebellion. The rebellion is not Sisyphus happy or Eternal Return or anything like that. It’s recognizing the situation for what it is and having always at the forefront of what one does or say, in a way it’s being authentic about the pessimistic situation. We can’t do anything, we are fucked but make it KNOWN. Don’t be afraid to piss off those who want to keep spreading the agenda. Climb every mountain and travel the world and help the poor are all fine and dandy but nothing more than “Just Do It” optimism slogans that fit right into the agendas need for you to feel this agenda is good enough. It’s all subsumed in the greater tragedy that these individuals thriving and dying were thrown into the agenda. Collateral damage and coercive de facto forced agenda rules this world. Your utility maximizing schemes just reinforce it, so keep at it so I can just continue to critique it. Cause it will never resolve the problems brought up here. Rebel, be pissed at the injustice, and discontinue.

I’m not just talking about collaboration to survive individually, but to dismantle the agenda that says we should be trying to survive in the first place, and determine a more satisfying way to interact with the world, together. — Possibility

I’ve never asserted collaboration as a principle or an imperative - ALWAYS as an option. As for what can be obtained: how about a more satisfactory agenda? Just because it doesn’t appear to have been achieved before, does not render it impossible. — Possibility

What is a more satisfactory agenda? Survival is necessary if you don't want to die. But I don't want to die, Survival always takes precedence unless slow suicide.. and so the agenda is followed. How can you ever get beyond that? Survival in a different way? The only thing tried like that is Communism, dictatorship/fascisms and that is just working for different masters. Communes always take place in a broader context of the bigger society (in the West's case a globalized industrialized economy). It's rearranging the chairs on the Titanic sort of thinking.

Besides which, as this whole thread is about, we are at root, always dissatisfied. Thus, changing economic arrangements doesn't negate the fact that BEING is never enough for us. In other words, it's too late for us, the already born. We can simply recognize the situation for what it is. Maybe we can be less of assholes to each other.. but we still have to be assholes to an extent because, as per your "wonderful notion" we need to "collaborate" in order so we don't die. But that means you have to do the shit that the agenda has for you to do.. The necessary things your social arrangement has provided for you to participate in....

THE AGENDA takes many political-cultural arrangements.. Tribal-Hunter-gatherer, pastoral, industrial post-modern, what have you... It doesn't matter.. The dissatisfied self-reflective human must survive yet is doomed to know it must do so, even if it doesn't like the various tasks necessary to do so.. But like a bird of prey.. our dissatisfied minds can't just be satisfied with subsisting, we must set goals that when reached only satisfy for a short time for yet more goals. And sure, pipe dreams of enlightened monks or what not aside, it's inescapable.

Just don't put more people in this inescapable/unjust situation in the first place.

There is one stance that I do expect you to take, and that is "What you do matters". — baker

But that you MUST do, has already been forced unto you at all.

So? — baker

The move from unenlightened to enlightened is what I am talking about.. This move itself is a burden that is put upon someone and I am against putting burdens onto others unnecessarily.

It's important to note, though, that ideally, you wouldn't hear anything about Buddhism (or most other "Eastern religions") unless you made the effort yourself.
Instead, what has happened is that some Westerners have spread "Eastern religions" in the West, using the model of religion as they devised it based on Christianity. Unlike Christianity, "Eastern religions" generally do not proselytize, they are closed circles intended only for those with sufficient personal interest and who are willing and able to make the required effort. — baker

Ok, doesn't really negate my point that one must do X to get out of Y.. This is a burden to overcome in the first place and this "first place" is where my problem lies.

I think the cure for all this is to actually study Buddhist doctrine, or else, drop all talk of it. — baker

Eh, I don't care for this "First rule of Fight Club is don't talk about Fight Club". Like if you want to discuss it fine.. You I believe were the one bringing up ideas of the no self and Buddhism etc.. So I am accommodating.. I couldn't give a shit really about ideas of the "no real self self" thing.. cause I don't believe it to have much relevance or truth.. We are constructed but only because evolutionarily, the we are animals that do this, not because of a metaphysical no "there" there principle or anything.

Clearly, it's not all that communal, given that not everyone shares it. — baker

Communal doesn't mean everyone has to believe it, just people who kind of "get it". Some people don't mind being forced into games. Some people don't mind that being born presents with it the collateral damage of suffering. I present why it is an injustice, I can't force others to see it or not. Some people thought slavery was a part of life.. It takes time for people to catch up sometimes to things that at first seem counterintuitive.. Procreation, despite good intentions is bad for the one who is procreated.

Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle. — baker

That's just the middle-class perspective of the Managers telling their workers to "Stop fuckin complaining.. you are just a wimp.. You know a better way to handle this is to put more effort into the work..you fuckn degenerate" you know.. things like this.. Again, I take the stance of rebellion not compliance.. That is the harder path as is proven by thoughts such as "Complaining is beneath dignity".. fuck that, I'm COMPLAINING!!! The situation is FUCKED and there is NOTHING besides NOT SPREADING IT TO OTHERS one can do about it..

This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency. — baker

What the fuck matters about common decency when one is thrown into a situation one would not ask for and given the option of suicide or comply as a way out? Sitting and trying to rid the self of self or any Buddhist thing you want to think of is just one coping mechanism.. It doesn't mean that the peaceful looking monk is any more dignified than the smug asshole statue of some Roman Stoic philosopher.. Both just coping mechanisms my man.

"You two". Blegh.
Schopenhauer1 and I do not have the same stance, and I'm not "griping" about the agenda. — baker

Thems fightin words :angry: :lol:

The miracles that Moses performed were not the result of him being more than human. The metaphysical connection is the power of God.

This is not to say that some may have seen things differently. Judaism never had the dogmas and "official" doctrines that Christianity does. — Fooloso4

Yep true.. However, the Torah seems to be a product of about the 600s-400s BCE, with the prophets ranging from 800s-200s BCE (Daniel being one of the later ones) not the 1200s BCE. That being said, it isn't very far down the line of its compilation that we see a lot of variations start to take place regarding its interpretations.. So Daniel is already an oddity (along with Ezekiel), regarding its more elaborate metaphysical visions. Daniel is especially nebulous, especially in regards to Son of Man.. We also know that apocrypha like the Book of Enoch seems to also have been popular and puts Enoch in the light of a hero person who becomes an angel.. Angels in general become quite a popular motif, not just in the apocrypha communities but in Rabbinic circles as evidenced by quotes I just presented. It is not a stretch that by the time of the 1st century angelic associations with a messiah would be prominent. It may be one "kosher" view of a messiah in that the messiah is not "quite" divine, but is very much blessed with the spirit of the divine in some metaphysical way, but not quite divine himself, if that makes sense. If an man can ascend to an angel, it can be a weird notion, but perhaps angel descend to at least be a spiritual mouthpiece through a man. That sort of thinking.

Angels as warriors
In the Bible there are some references to angels acting as warriors, and protectors of all that is good. One of these references is The Book of Daniel which contains four apocalyptic visions. However, in Daniel 10:13, it makes reference to a sort of battle between the prince of the kingdom of Persia and the speaker who is believed to be Gabriel. Here Gabriel tells Daniel that the chief of princes, Michael, helped him in the opposition he was facing from the prince of the kingdom of Persia. Thus, both angels are acting as warriors for the good against the bad opposition from the prince of the kingdom of Persia. In addition, in Daniel 12:1, the speaker, Gabriel says that the angel Michael is the protector of the Israelite people and is a great prince.[8]

Angels as teachers in Jewish apocalyptic literature
Angels in the roles of teachers become especially important in Jewish apocalyptic literature, in such books as Daniel, Zechariah, and 4 Ezra, which feature enigmatic and terrifying prophetic visions experienced by unknowing humans who need heavenly guidance to understand what they have witnessed; no longer does prophecy come with full or immediate understanding.[11] Rather, a type of commentary or explanation of the vision is provided through the figure of an interpreting angel, whose teachings dispel the ignorance of the prophet and allow him to better understand, and thus better propagate, the knowledge of the end times that his vision contains.[12]

Such knowledge of the apocalypse had both heavenly and earthly implications, and assumed a great deal of importance to the oppressed people of Israel at the time, who needed explanations for why God would let them go through so much hardship; thus, the knowledge was “good.”[13] Because of the bizarre features of the visions contained in such apocalyptic literature, interpreting angels assume the roles of teachers rather than just messengers; instead of just conveying information, they must explain it.[12]

As teachers, they convey the full might and authority of heaven, while being able to comfort their distressed human charges in a more relatable way than if the prophets were directly spoken to by God. Thus, angels as teachers function as relatable interpreters and testaments to God's power, while also increasing His transcendence.[12] Most of all, they were important in establishing human prophets in their proper role as comforters, with “good” knowledge, to the people of Israel.

In 4 Ezra, the interpreting or teaching angel is Uriel. When Ezra expresses his distress about issues that would be similarly preoccupying Jews of his time—namely, why God would allow His chosen people to suffer under the oppression of the Gentiles—Uriel is sent from heaven by God to help relieve his ignorance. In the passage, Ezra argues with Uriel about matters of justice in a way that he never could with God; however, the angel argues back with a series of riddles that eventually show Ezra the misguidedness of his thinking (4 Ezra 3:1-4:21). Importantly, Uriel does not simply transmit information or “speak at” Ezra; the two are engaged in an animated dialogue that reflects that of a teacher and a student, with the former guiding the latter to a realization.[12] Ezra could never argue with God the way he argues with Uriel; however, this argument and its accompanying emotional catharsis is partially what leads him to discover the truth and main message of the passage on his own.

In Daniel, angels also assume the roles of interpreters and teachers, notably in their abilities to explain visions concerning the eschaton, and help human prophets unknot knowledge from it. In Daniel, it is the archangel Gabriel who is sent down from heaven by God to explain Daniel's perplexing visions and help relieve some of his distress (Daniel 8:16-17). In Daniel 7-12, the good knowledge that is transmitted to Daniel and thus to the rest of the population, is that the earthly events that have been so oppressing the Jewish people are being mirrored in heaven, and that justice will eventually reign in the form of a final battle pitting the armies of heaven against evil forces, which will be vanquished.[14]

However, Daniel is only aware of this information due to the assistance of Gabriel, who teaches him the correct interpretation of his vision, and encouraging him when he falters (Daniel 8:15-27). This role of angels is mirrored in Zechariah, where angelic interpretation and teaching is necessary to unravel the bizarre visions that the prophet witnesses. In the passage, the angel literally walks through Zechariah's visions with him, explaining and teaching him as they go along so that Zechariah properly understands God's intended meaning (Zechariah 1:9-5:11).[9] — Angels in Judaism Wikipedia

Although there are a few notable exception the term 'god' is singular and refers to a unique being, the terms divine is used to refer to the elevated or supernatural status of angels by some but objected to by others. The passage from the Talmud points to the mistake of confusing what is divine a deity. Failure to understand the difference has caused Apollodorus a great deal of confusion, especially with regard to his neoPlatonic interpretation of Plato, where he makes both the sun and the good gods and conflates this with the Christian God. — Fooloso4

Yep agreed on pretty much all of that.

As with these other terms, messiah is a fertile imaginative ground. The question was not only who is the messiah but what is the messiah. I don't think the Hebrew expression translated as son of man, that is, 'ben adam', son of Adam, is ambiguous. It refers to a human being. I think it is in this sense that Jesus and his disciples used and understood the term. — Fooloso4

Yeah, but I think this was ambiguous and various groups interpreted it differently, including different Rabbis later on. A rationalist approach would be to say that it means "Mankind" specifically "Israel" or the "Elect" of Israel.. However, I think Enoch shows that there was definitely a more literal and concrete version of this as a title of Son of Man... That being some sort of angelic figure representing Man... So, I can see an ambiguous but logical line of thought that goes something like:

Jesus was baptized by John, and a sort of "spiritual union" happened whereby Jesus took on the characteristics or was the mouthpiece of the Son of Man angelic figure.. This original notion of "adaption of God" became more embellished. So they thought him a human, but one sort of possessed by the spirit of the Son of Man, a sort of redeemer angel. At the least, they though Jesus a harbinger for such a figure if not embodying the figure himself.

I know that the impulse is to point to another messianic claimant like Judas the Galilean or Simon Bar Kosiba (Kochba) as more military/practical messiahs, but as you state, I think the idea was ambiguous enough for it to really be various flavors.. One flavor was a more prophetic Son of Man.. The other was to be a triumphant military leader. Things like this.

Cyrus ll, Cyrus the Great, was, according to the Book of Isaiah, was anointed by God. (45:1) Anointed is the translation of the Hebrew word transliterated , as messiah. Here the term means liberator. There is a clear a clear connection here with the divine but Cyrus, although of elevated status is still human.

Given the diversity of beliefs within a fairly narrow range, it seems likely that different beliefs regarding such things sprouted. — Fooloso4

Yeah political redeemer for sure, but how this was supposed to manifest was probably very nebulous and looked different to different groups and people. I just think Son of Man was probably one form of it was popular. The very fact it needs to be addressed in the Talmud tells us that it was at least part of the discussion. The rabbis didn't discount Enoch/Metatron, they just reprimanded against elevating him too highly.. Clearly he was seen as part of the divine hierarchy.. The question becomes, was Enoch/Metatron at all believed to be some part of the messianic claimants identity? I think there can be some proof for this, and the original Jesus movement (very early I am talking) could have represented this.. prior to his becoming elevated to another thing altogether by later Greek writers and embellishments and separated from Judaic thought almost completely.

Let me ask you - are YOU willing to collaborate with people who choose (for whatever reason) to procreate? You think that collaborate means ‘follow my agenda’ — Possibility

I do everyday.. It is literally what you have to do to survive unless you are a complete hermit in the woods.. but even then if you are a fully functioning adult, you had to interact as a child with a parent figure and society before you decided to become a hermit.. so your mind is already shaped thusly.

Collaboration in its fullest sense is NOT concrete. That is the whole point. It disregards any existing sense of ‘agenda’ in favour of the possibility of working together, because two groups pulling in opposite directions achieves nothing overall except more suffering. — Possibility

I am not against collaboration. It's almost a necessity for humans to live... In other words, before your long posts reifying it as a universal Principle par Excellance.. I knew of the importance of collaboration.. It doesn't have to be made into a universal metaphysical principle though as you are doing.. I've already stated that you are committing several fallacies but will reiterate:

1) Collaboration is something that PEOPLE/MINDS do NOT natural phenomena.

2) Just because collaboration might bring better results, doesn't prove anything about its morality.. At best it's a management tool, which obliquely, is what @baker was trying to say.. (reducing harm instead of getting rid of it completely)..

3) It is the naturalistic fallacy even if it WAS some sort of natural principle to think that it applies to self-reflective minds that can CHOOSE various options.. All it would be (going back to point 2) is a way for some hypothetical imperatives related to outcomes to be obtained.. and even so, one would have to value that which one is working towards. which itself would still beg the question of WHAT is to be obtained? There is ALWAYS an agenda here.. even if it is just to make more people who collaborate itself!

At the end of the day, being born at all, was a POLITICAL AGENDA because the someone else decided THIS LIFE is something ANOTHER PERSON must navigate through.. Collaboration is simply a way people get by to live.. And any common sense says, "Yes better to collaborate than isolate".. But that isn't solving the problem.. That is simply a better way to manage the AGENDA that has been chosen for us.. In fact, it by praising "collaboration" to this level, one is doubling down on the AGENDA.

It's akin to me creating a game for you and then me saying to you.. "Hey, if you double down on collaborating on the game I created for you, you at least won't suffer as much!"..You are essentially saying to buy into the agenda even more.. Poor consolation, my friend. You shouldn't have forced people to play the game in the first place. THAT was the immoral thing. Not the, "But you could collaborate!" hypothetical imperative.

Confluence and influence. Various stories and beliefs that are for one reason or another embraced, are embellished, altered, and combined. There is a sense in which influence flows in both directions of time. On the one hand I do not think there is a linear progression, old ideas gain new currency. On the other, redaction distorts and erases the direction of influence. — Fooloso4

Exactly.

I find the ambiguity of the status of angels interesting. Their intermediary place has been fertile ground for the imagination. — Fooloso4

Yes, but also for the ancient Jews.. which is why they get attached to so much mysticism, including the messianic claimant, at various times in the history. I think there is definitely a lot to mine in the way of the Ebionite connection with Enoch tradition with Son of Man tradition with messiah.. It's like there was some odd ideas rolling around about a Son of Man that may have been a motif that was popular in the Jesus day. It was certainly talked about in the Babylonian Talmud:

The Babylonian Talmud mentions Metatron by name in three places: Hagigah 15a, Sanhedrin 38b and Avodah Zarah 3b.

Hagigah 15a describes Elisha ben Abuyah in Paradise seeing Metatron sitting down (an action that is not done in the presence of God). Elishah ben Abuyah therefore looks to Metatron as a deity and says heretically: "There are indeed two powers in Heaven!"[34] The rabbis explain that Metatron had permission to sit because of his function as the Heavenly Scribe, writing down the deeds of Israel.[35] The Talmud states, it was proved to Elisha that Metatron could not be a second deity by the fact that Metatron received 60 "strokes with fiery rods" to demonstrate that Metatron was not a god, but an angel, and could be punished.[36]

In Sanhedrin 38b one of the minim tells Rabbi Idith that Metatron should be worshiped because he has a name like his master. Rabbi Idith uses the same passage Exodus 23:21 to show that Metatron was an angel and not a deity and thus should not be worshiped. Furthermore, as an angel, Metatron has no power to pardon transgressions nor was he to be received even as a messenger of forgiveness.[36][37][38]

In Avodah Zarah 3b, the Talmud hypothesizes as to how God spends His day. It is suggested that in the fourth quarter of the day God sits and instructs the school children, while in the preceding three quarters Metatron may take God's place or God may do this among other tasks.[39]

Yevamot 16b records an utterance, "I have been young; also I have been old" found in Psalm 37:25. The Talmud here attributes this utterance to the Chief Angel and Prince of the World, whom the rabbinic tradition identifies as Metatron.[40] — Metatron Wikipedia

Metatron "the Youth", a title previously used in 3 Enoch, where it appears to mean "servant".[45] It identifies him as the angel that led the people of Israel through the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt (again referring to Exodus 23:21, see above), and describes him as a heavenly priest.

In the later Ecstatic Kabbalah, Metatron is a messianic figure.[47]

The Zohar describes Metatron as the "King of the angels."[48] and associates the concept of Metatron with that of the divine name Shadday.[49] Zohar commentaries such as the "Ohr Yakar" by Moses ben Jacob Cordovero explain the Zohar as meaning that Metatron as the head of Yetzira[50] This corresponds closely with Maimonides' description of the Talmudic "Prince of the World",[51] traditionally associated with Metatron,[52] as the core "Active Intellect."[53][54]

The Zohar describes several biblical figures as metaphors for Metatron. Examples are Enoch,[55][56] Joseph,[57][58] Eliezer,[59] Joshua,[60] and others. The Zohar finds the word "youth" used to describe Joseph and Joshua a hint that the figures are a metaphor to Metatron, and also the concept of "servant" by Eliezer as a reference to Metatron.[61] The Staff of Moses is also described by the Zohar[56] as a reference to Metatron. The Zohar also states that the two tets in "totaphot" of the phylacteries are a reference to Metatron.[62] The Zohar draws distinction between Metatron and Michael.[63] While Michael is described repeatedly in the Zohar as the figure represented by the High Priest, Metatron is represented by the structure of the tabernacle itself.[63]

I think the influence of an angelic superhero in 1st century Judaic thought, cannot be discounted.. The idea that Jesus, a messianic claimant, would be attached to this idea, might not then be unreasonable, and is sort of "kosher" in the sense of the popular mythos of its time. I can see Jesus' original followers seeing Jesus as some sort of incarnation of Enoch/Michael/Son of Man/Metatron (later figure), and that this motif of the messiah being attached to an angel, could be the first step thus making Jesus "othered".. I would argue that this first step would be still Judaic in its origins... It was the next steps of making Son of Man into a literal Son of God and apart of a the divine Logos, and a complete intercessor necessary to save humanity by way of his worship that Jesus becomes completely cut of from this first incarnation (as possibly represented by the Ebionites). In other words, there is room in this debate for a "squishy middle" whereby a "metaphysical" messiah was not out of the question of beliefs of Jews in 1st century Judea.. This does not mean later revisions of a full-fledged Son of God theology was present.. just that attachments with angels could have been a thing, being that Daniel's Son of Man imagery became popularized by later books like Enoch. Really the last step is to then attach Enoch/Son of Man to a messiah.. And even later Rabbinic writers seem to indicate that this was/is considered "kosher" tradition in Judaic thought.

My own interpretation is kind of rudimentary but it looks something like this:

800s-400s BCE (Israel/Judah Kingdoms/First Temple Period) a Yahweh alone contingency formed amongst a polytheistic pantheon. The tribes that formed into the two "kingdoms" were basically derived from pastoral groups that didn't really settle in the bigger Canaanite cities. Was Moses a real historical figure? Not sure, but if he was, he might be attributed to certain tribal rituals already being practiced.. Again, speculating. Perhaps there is some merit to a group of peoples escaping Egypt into Canaan and formed with the other non-settled Canaanites to contribute their cultural practices which became a more unified mythology of all the tribes.

400s-300s BCE- (Yehud/Judah as a Persian province/Second Temple Judaism started). The Yahweh alone contingency won out as scribes and reformers (like Ezra and Nehemiah), reestablished the Temple with a consistent Priestly lineage clan, and Levites, reestablished. Ideas were brought in from Persia from Zoroastrianism.. mainly End of Times conflict, angelology (like Book of Enoch), good vs. evil, and things like this. The Torah was compiled and redacted from earlier myths and established as THE LAW and retroactively written as it if it was written in its full form prior. It was during this time that the commandments were codified as THE way to live as a Judean.. There probably was a sort of "Oral Law" (not nearly as expansive as written in the Mishna or Talmud though), established by the very same characters as people like Ezra/Nehemiah and later "prophets" who came back to the Judah to reestablish a sort of theological state under the hierarchy of the satraps and Persian power structure.

300s BCE- 135 CE- (Greek Rule/Maccabean Rule/ Herodian/ Roman Rule): Basically groups formed.. Some kept traditions of the Oral Torah set out in the reestablishment/Persian period and EXPANDED them from Priestly to general population (mainly regarding purity laws). These were the Pharisees (or proto-Pharisees, maybe called originally the Hasadim).. The Sadducees comprised mainly of the Priestly class, and were influenced by Greco-Roman culture more. They did not care as much about Oral traditions, and were influenced by power as it was lived in the real world (not the afterlife or End of Times). Pharisees may have had more of the Persian influence in general, with angels and afterlife, and other more mystical elements. I can see them harkening back to the Great Assemby/Reformation period of Ezra whilst the Sadduccees basically went along more with the outlook of the more contemporaneous Greeks. The Dead Sea Scroll sect represented Sadducees/Priests that thought the more Greek-influenced Priests were lax. They in fact had more in common with the Hasidim/Pharisees which kept more of the Persian influence. I find it interesting, that Pharisee is said to come from "perushim".. which means "separate ones", but it could also derive from Pharsee (Persian).. Either way it could be a good either and sort of thing.

The ideas of angels had perhaps much more of a hold in Judaism (both in Pharisaic and Essenic varieties) around the 300s BCE-135 CE. Perhaps the idea of messiah was fluid, and some of these groups interpreted Son of Man to be an angelic protector figure that protected Israel in Heaven, but also became associated with the judgement at the End of Times, and to this end also became attached to either the harbinger of the messiah or had some direct correlation with the messiah.. Perhaps it was more like how people in astrology view your "sign".. The Messiah was born under the angelic "sign" of the Son of Man.. He need not be an actual angel, but sort of have a metaphysical connection somehow.. It could have been a part of the narrative at the time of how the messiah manifests. Mind you, none of this has to mean that the Son of Man is MORE than a connection with the eponymous angel (which could also be Michael and later Metatron.. "Beyond the Throne"). It was basically the Book of John which combined the Son of Man tradition with the Platonic tradition (via Philo) of a Logos that was a sort of "blueprint" of creation. If you remember, even the Ebionites, who seemed to be fully Jewish in character except believing as Jesus as a messiah, thought Jesus may be some sort of association with an angel..

Some Church Fathers describe some Ebionites as departing from traditional Jewish principles of faith and practice. For example, Methodius of Olympus stated that the Ebionites believed that the prophets spoke only by their own power and not by the power of the Holy Spirit.[36] Epiphanius of Salamis stated that the Ebionites engaged in excessive ritual bathing,[37] possessed an angelology which claimed that the Christ is an angel of God who was incarnated in Jesus when he was adopted as the son of God during his baptism,[38][39] — Ebionites Wikipedia Article

I'm curious, do you think the Enoch tradition had any influence on Pharisaic and Essenic forms of Judaism at the Second Temple time period? By Enoch, I also include ideas that the messiah is somehow attached to the Son of Man iconography in Daniel and the apocryphal Books of Enoch (1-3), and the idea of Metatron, which by Enoch 3 seems to be Enoch made into an angelic figure.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Metatron

I do love that name as it sounds like a transformer or some cartoon ha.

The 1976 publication by Milik[42] of the results of the paleographic dating of the Enochic fragments found in Qumran made a breakthrough. According to this scholar, who studied the original scrolls for many years, the oldest fragments of the Book of Watchers are dated to 200–150 BC. Since the Book of Watchers shows evidence of multiple stages of composition, it is probable that this work was extant already in the 3rd century BC.[47] The same can be said about the Astronomical Book.[1]

It was no longer possible to claim that the core of the Book of Enoch was composed in the wake of the Maccabean Revolt as a reaction to Hellenization.[48]: 93  Scholars thus had to look for the origins of the Qumranic sections of 1 Enoch in the previous historical period, and the comparison with traditional material of such a time showed that these sections do not draw exclusively on categories and ideas prominent in the Hebrew Bible. Some scholars speak even of an "Enochic Judaism" from which the writers of Qumran scrolls were descended.[49] Margaret Barker argues, "Enoch is the writing of a very conservative group whose roots go right back to the time of the First Temple".[50] The main peculiar aspects of the Enochic Judaism are the following:

the idea of the origin of the evil caused by the fallen angels, who came on the earth to unite with human women. These fallen angels are considered ultimately responsible for the spread of evil and impurity on the earth;[48]: 90 
the absence in 1 Enoch of formal parallels to the specific laws and commandments found in the Mosaic Torah and of references to issues like Shabbat observance or the rite of circumcision. The Sinaitic covenant and Torah are not of central importance in the Book of Enoch;[51]: 50–51 
the concept of "End of Days" as the time of final judgment that takes the place of promised earthly rewards;[48]: 92 
the rejection of the Second Temple's sacrifices considered impure: according to Enoch 89:73, the Jews, when returned from the exile, "reared up that tower (the temple) and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure";[citation needed]
the presentation of heaven in 1 Enoch 1-36, not in terms of the Jerusalem temple and its priests, but modelling God and his angels on an ancient near eastern or Hellenistic court, with its king and courtiers;[52]
a solar calendar in opposition to the lunar calendar used in the Second Temple (a very important aspect for the determination of the dates of religious feasts);
an interest in the angelic world that involves life after death.[53]
Most Qumran fragments are relatively early, with none written from the last period of the Qumranic experience. Thus, it is probable that the Qumran community gradually lost interest in the Book of Enoch.[54]

The relation between 1 Enoch and the Essenes was noted even before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[55] While there is consensus to consider the sections of the Book of Enoch found in Qumran as texts used by the Essenes, the same is not so clear for the Enochic texts not found in Qumran (mainly the Book of Parables): it was proposed[56] to consider these parts as expression of the mainstream, but not-Qumranic, essenic movement. The main peculiar aspects of the not-Qumranic units of 1 Enoch are the following:

a Messiah called "Son of Man", with divine attributes, generated before the creation, who will act directly in the final judgment and sit on a throne of glory (1 Enoch 46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29)[17]: 562–563 
the sinners usually seen as the wealthy ones and the just as the oppressed (a theme we find also in the Psalms of Solomon).
Early influence
Classical rabbinic literature is characterized by near silence concerning Enoch. It seems plausible that rabbinic polemics against Enochic texts and traditions might have led to the loss of these books to Rabbinic Judaism.[57]

The Book of Enoch plays an important role in the history of Jewish mysticism: the scholar Gershom Scholem wrote, "The main subjects of the later Merkabah mysticism already occupy a central position in the older esoteric literature, best represented by the Book of Enoch."[58] Particular attention is paid to the detailed description of the throne of God included in chapter 14 of 1 Enoch.[1]

For the quotation from the Book of Watchers in the New Testament Epistle of Jude:

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all who are ungodly among them of all their godless deeds which they have godlessly committed, and of all the harsh speeches which godless sinners have spoken against Him."

There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines about the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the resurrection, and eschatology.[2][5]: 10  The limits of the influence of 1 Enoch are discussed at length by R.H. Charles,[59] Ephraim Isaac,[5] and G.W. Nickelsburg[60] in their respective translations and commentaries. It is possible that the earlier sections of 1 Enoch had direct textual and content influence on many Biblical apocrypha, such as Jubilees, 2 Baruch, 2 Esdras, Apocalypse of Abraham and 2 Enoch, though even in these cases, the connection is typically more branches of a common trunk than direct development.[61]

The Greek text was known to, and quoted, both positively and negatively, by many Church Fathers: references can be found in Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Commodianus, Lactantius and Cassian.[62]: 430  After Cassian and before the modern "rediscovery", some excerpts are given in the Byzantine Empire by the 8th-century monk George Syncellus in his chronography, and in the 9th century, it is listed as an apocryphon of the New Testament by Patriarch Nicephorus.[63] — Book of Enoch Wikipedia Article

When I refer to open-ended collaboration, let’s just say that the process is the shared creation of a new system, a new ‘agenda’ that’s more satisfactory for all. There’s room in this collaboration for the pessimist, the rebel and the antinatalist, even if all you’re going to do is gripe. We need to understand where we ARE in order to structure a path beyond it. Evolution is driven by variation beyond consolidation. — Possibility

You are making several assumptions, that I can't let stand here:
1) The very fact that I am forced in this collaboration schema is what I am talking about. That is the "forced", in the "forced agenda". You cannot make a consolation by saying, "We accommodate for you", because the very fact we are forced into the collaboration scheme at all, is the very problem at hand! So if there is any collaboration, it would be how to collaborate to end the injustice of (the) forced agendas. So, my analogy still applies. Here is this world that YOU could not, by laws of nature, be able to setup yourself the way you wanted.. But then you are saying, COLLABORATE.. See that is YOUR (society's) agenda, not the individuals. Your arguments can never over step this, as you are trying so hard to do rhetorically here.

2) You are falling into the naturalistic fallacy. Who cares if evolution is driven by X. This is simply descriptive of evolution, and not WHAT humans MUST do. Once you cross from unthinking mechanisms to a self-reflective being, you cannot mix "evolution" for what humans should do without making category errors and making the naturalistic fallacy.

You’re saying that an individual has value, but this perceived value is contingent upon an awareness of their existence - whether actual or potential - which entails suffering.
Value = existence = suffering.
No existence = no suffering = no value. — Possibility

No, this inevitability logic you've made isn't the case. Rather, no person = no collateral damage. Period. Person = collateral damage. So collateral damage or no collateral damage? You pick collateral damage and then justify if by naturalistic fallacies and all sort of rhetorical summersaults.

No - the question I was answering was ‘why is your language so abstract?’ That’s not a ‘what is’ question. A parallel question would be ‘Why are you talking about this General Tsao’s Chicken? What kind of burger even IS that?’ — Possibility

No, it applies. I was trying to ask you to EXPLAIN your abstractions.. and then you seemed to dismiss me as stuck in some point of view so wouldn't understand. It seems like a dodge to not make it concrete. The more concrete it is, the more I can actually argue against it.. You probably don't want that. I don't know the motivation, other than you prefer self-referential language to collaborating :D.

Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that. — Possibility

That's STILL not an answer! That is like if someone asked.. "What is General Tsao's Chicken?" and I just said, "Well, you wouldn't know because you don't eat anything but burgers." That is just unhelpful if they legitimately asked in good faith.

That we should exist at some level that precludes us from the logical structure of existence? This is what I mean by ‘symbolic value’ - the idea that our perceived value has no relation to our existence. Like a mathematical symbol. — Possibility

Um, still don't get you. In fact, this just reinforced my arguments of why bring more people into suffering if it is part of the equation, and always will be? See my last post for more!

Ukraine?

@Possibility
It's like this... If I set up a society.. and set it up to my standards, how I want it, but not the way you would set it up if you were to be a self-reflective adult.. and I gave you some hobbies to pursue or people you can freely try to form relationships with as a consolation.. But it is still setup in MY way of doing things in this society.. including the hobbies and the ways in which we form relationships.. all spokes that go back to my hub that I created for you.. And you (by default of this existence) can NEVER have a say in it.. That is more what is going on.. Now I can say to you, "Hey, don't be so sad.. you can COLLABORATE in my world that I created (not the way you would set it up, mind you, but MY world), and that will make things better".. well that injustice is still there. it is not a consolation and doesn't solve the problem.

As I have stated many times, there is a POLITICAL AGENDA that the parent has., that THIS WORLD is somehow setup in a way that other people should have to go through its "gauntlet" and as you say, COLLABORATE in it.. But this isn't the way an adult-version of that child might have set it up if they had a choice... It was a forced outcome.. so what to do? Get the pitchforks and symbolically kill the rebel (get them to FOLLOW THE AGENDA and COLLABORATE).. maybe force them into some kind of therapy? I don't know, hey how about hey just go commit suicide and leave well enough alone?? That's where I'm getting at.. No amount of flowery language about universal collaboration to reduce suffering gets rid of this.. You can try to discount the "SELF" so you can gaslight and keep saying it's YOU who are not complying good enough..but this actually reiterates what I am saying by being an exemplar.. So keep doing it, so I can be right :D.

Once again, I am NOT saying that you MUST. I’m saying that the alternative (ignorance/isolation/exclusion) is ultimately less effective in reducing suffering, IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. The individual perspective has MORE structure in reality than this symbolic value you’re making it out to be. I’m not negating it, but rather describing it in context. The SELF is the continuous potential construct of a variable individual perspective. It has an ongoing relation to suffering as affect, but this relation is four-dimensional, not binary. And any reduction of this relation ignores the variable logical structure by which an individual determines and initiates action. — Possibility

Why do you speak in such abstractions? WHAT is the "variable logical structure".. and same here:

A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality. — Possibility

WHAT do you mean by symbolic value is oblivious to any complexity in the relation? Can you just speak in ordinary language speak? Do you just mean that life is more than suffering? Well, my point isn't exactly that. It is that there is an inherent dissatisfaction where our being is oriented to take any action because of this dissatisfaction. I call this a kind of "inherent suffering". This is in contrast to what I deem as "contingent suffering" which is apart from just the inherent suffering, there are many harms that befall us that vary to individual based on circumstances of cause/effect and environment.

Early Buddhism distinguishes between two types of desire: tanha and chanda.
Tanha is the craving we're all familiar with; we tend to imagine it in the form of hunger, or sexual lust, then in the vile craving of the heroin addict seeking his next fix, or the greedy capitalist ammassing more and more wealth. But also comes in much more subtle and sophisticated forms, like insisting the walls of your dining room be painted in taupe.
Chanda is the desire to overcome this mess of craving and suffering.

It's instructive to make this conceptual difference, so as not to be unduly pessimistic. — baker

Fair enough, and I think Schopenhauer would have a similar view. One point I am trying to make, that you criticized (it seemed) by saying I was overemphasizing, is that we are ALREADY put in a position that we will have those two types of craving AT ALL. This is my ethical stance against procreation, but also informs my overall pessimism. The fact that we are already PUT in a stance to HAVE to move forward with burdens, overcoming burdens, overcoming the burden of all burdens (chanda, let's say), the burden of having to look at things in a more Zen-like way.. The burden of not "getting" the Zen-like thing.. The do WITHOUT doing.. action WITHOUT action, etc. etc. or whatever Eastern principle you can think of that I (or anyone) am just not GETTING!! It's all part of a STANCE one HAS to take in the FIRST PLACE because one is ALREADY in the situation to begin with. And this, you may call "unduly pessimistic" but it is the reality, and a reality that cannot be contested, as even the very act of contesting proves the point!

So I brought up the idea of gaslighting with @Possibility. In a way, Buddhist (and other Eastern religions) are doing the same thing as what (it seems if I can understand her jargon) she is doing. That is to say, it tries to make the suffering inwards (it is YOU who must change your view or right way of thinking to overcome suffering). Possibility does it a little differently.. She says instead, "In order to reduce suffering you must X, Y, Z (connect/collaborate/aware)". So she oddly collapses the individual perspective in some web-like fashion as to try to negate it.. But the SELF is persistent because of its basic reality as phenomenon. Being part of an almighty "Steamrolling Collaboration" principle does not make the sufferings of being a SELF/individual go away. All the problems remain, and these exercises in restating pretty conventional behaviors (working with other people and things to construct stuff etc.) in poetic terms. But just rephrasing things in more flowery terms doesn't get at the problems.

The Buddhist model is more like, "You are not a real 'self', but a constructed reality that can change that construct through mindfulness practices.. Thus, in reality the world 'out there' is just your construction that you can deconstruct and overcome suffering through this deconstruction".. This again is just poetic license to me. It doesn't actually get at or overcome the problems. Here are some reasons:

1) First off, I don't think the metaphysics is true. I DON'T think that the world is SIMPLY a construction. Rather, I think that there are SOME necessities (i.e. situatedness) of reality that one CAN NEVER change. These processes are the reasons we have desires and wants in the the first place. They are basically originated from evolutionary means, and what it means to be an animal in a physical environment.. (hunger, boredom, language, working together to accomplish goals, and the self-awareness).. it's all part of a sort of necessity of what it means to be "born" at all. I think it is a long con game to pretend that, "No we are not born, we only THINK we are born".. I think Descartes pretty much took care of that kind of thinking. Buddhism INSISTS there is no THERE there but there is a THERE. If there wasn't you wouldn't need things like Chanda or Buddhism at all! It's a pseudo-problem, really. But you can always gaslight and say, "No no, that is just what you would say because you are too deluded or you don't have the right understanding". All our actions, INCLUDING the move towards Buddhism itself, says otherwise.. That there is a THERE there, trying to alleviate. I certainly agree with Buddhism on its conclusions (mainly the idea of dissatisfaction), but perhaps not its metaphysics, of the No Self or the No There there. The very fact that we are ALREADY in a place that moves towards trying to understand the self as not a self, means there is a THERE there we are trying to get away from..

2) Second, I notice that Buddhism is basically about the Middle Way.. This allows for things like having families, working tirelessly at your job, or whatever. Why is that? Well, you can say that you can do any activity without actually DOING it.. You can do it in a more Zen-like fashion...But to me that is like Buddhism-lite.. If I was a business owner or wanted society to run a certain way, I would LOVE for my citizens to take on this mindset.. They can pretend to Zombie out whilst doing my bidding... I don't even have to manipulate them with rewards! So it just becomes an exercise in trying to DEAL with situations MORE EASILY.. and thus just becomes a self-help tool..

But then you will say, "No No, that is Western appropriation of deeper ideas for the sake of modern world"... Fine, but we still have the problem of the world being ALREADY there with its problems to overcome.. Survival, dissatisfaction, etc.. It can never get past this factuality of things, no matter how hard it poetically alludes this very fact through poetic ideas of No THERE there..

Thus, my answer is griping. I know that sounds oddly pedestrian, but it is more than just complaining.. It is the communal realization of our predicament.. It is Sisyphus realizing itself by discussing it with other Sisyphuses and holding our feet to the fire.. Instead of blowing smoke up metaphorical asses with poetic No THERE there or the Ubermensch/Eternal Return or even Sisyphus happy, we realize the situation for what it is, a FORCED situation. There is an agenda of life and society and we were FORCED to deal with it.. Recognize the injustice FIRST and then proceed. Once the injustice is recognized, start realizing what this means.. Existence becomes a POLITICAL problem of being forced into an agenda at all to begin with. We solve it through concerted efforts of antinatalism and recognizing that though once born we must work together in capacities as we do to survive, it was regrettable we were forced into this situation of following the agenda and suffering at all.

To sum it up:

Buddhism: Seek within yourself to try to overcome suffering..

My view: The suffering will ALWAYS be there. There is a factuality that Buddhism tries to overstep that it just cannot and that this factuality presents a very THERE there and a very real REALITY based on evolutionary principles that originated self-reflective creatures as ourselves. With our self-awareness, we can recognize the situation we were forced into and the suffering entailed with it.. We can communally console each other, be empathetic that we are stuck in this situation at all in the first place, gripe as much as we can about our existential situation, and not force others into this situation.

The common response might be, "But no Schopy... that is not CONSTRUCTIVE!".. This already assumes the stance of the AGENDA. It assumes we MUST be doing something to produce X!! We must have a GOAL so we can PRODUCE something.. ACHIEVE something.. Noo.. that is simply taking on the stance of the agenda to reinforce it. In a way @Possibility is positing the ultimate "Follow the Agenda" scheme with her Collaboration jargon.. The Agenda MUST have its way, and to be fulfilled, one MUST follow the dictates of the agenda.. In that fashion, Schopenhauer is right.. We NEED goals to get wrapped up in.. Flow states to zone-out in, things like this.. Because we are dissatisfied creatures that cannot just BE. BEING itself would be all that was needed if there wasn't this inherent dissatisfaction. THUS, if we gripe.. we must write a book that is an end result of the project.. If we gripe, we must gripe so we can get into a flow-state.. The agenda is thus reinforced.. See.. it isn't THAT BAD.. We have CONSOLATIONS of flow-states and achievements to tide you over! And thus doing you contribute to the OVERALL agenda..

Why do I use the word AGENDA? Because it is the socio-cultural-physical reality of the ALREADY existing that one is thrown into. One can never have their own version of how things should be. One is always forced into the realities of the survival dissatisfaction operation that we are born into and MUST deal and take a stance towards in the first place. We are forced into situations of DEALING with. This is part of the factuality of being born at all. It cannot be overcome through X practices. The very fact that one is trying to overcome it (e.g. chanda) is part of the problem in the first place. I recommend we see the tragedy for what it is. Do not create Dealing with situations in the first place for people. It's just one thing, and another, and another.. Whether physical ailments, small pains, large harms, survival related activities, or the general dissatisfaction behind much of what we do.

I have not said that we should collaborate, although if reducing suffering is your priority, then yes, I think increasing collaboration is the most efficient method - but not at the expense of awareness or connection. This is not a normative statement, but a rational one. I’m not talking about collaborating on isolated projects, but simply a general decision to collaborate rather than exclude whenever the opportunity presents - because one option never presents without the other, despite appearances. It’s invariably painful, humbling, risky and seemingly impossible, but it’s always ultimately worthwhile (just maybe not for any particular individual). — Possibility

Despite your protestations, you ARE making a normative statement.. X is wortwhile.. THIS is valuable not THAT. So you are making normative statements contra yourself.

But your normative statement is odd because there is no "there" there, yet again. WHAT is ultimately worthwhile, if not for the individual? Is it like some universal game? You get X collaboration points? Is it the contributing to some grand metanarrative?

You mine as well say to just be a productive citizen and look to Dudley Dooright.. Celebrate the moments of our lives.. and all the other slogans... Every day we go to work or try to survive with other humans were are doing these things.. So, the fuck, what?? It's just how we survive. Cultural knowledge gathered through humans interacting over time...
— schopenhauer1

But that’s not what I’m saying. Why bother to survive? What does that achieve? No one survives, in the end. Stop trying to survive or be socio-culturally productive, and instead find a way to make an incremental difference in the bigger picture. Fuck the agenda - don’t try to avoid suffering (in most cases it won’t actually harm you) - stare it down and use it to change the game. Don’t just gather knowledge, but strive to understand beyond what you can know with objective certainty. Take risks - you’re going to die anyway. Find out what you’re capable of. Intentionally do nothing - stare boredom in the face and discover what motivates you at your core: is it fear or something else? So many choices, so little time...

Ok, so it is warmed-over middle-class values again. You can't say Fuck the Agenda and then say, "Do the Dew!" "Be all you can be!" and all that :lol:.

You have no idea what happened before the Big Bang, any more than most scientists.. and certainly has nothing to do with the qualitative aspects of connection, awareness, or collaboration.. all things that can and should only be attributed to sentient beings of a certain type and complexity.

What do you mean by "awareness, connection and collaboration with experiences of suffering".. you are always speaking in vague notions.
— schopenhauer1

No, I don’t know, but I do have ideas. And you can’t be certain that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing, because you don’t know, either.

Me not being certain doesn't thus make you certain. I'm sure someone can use symbolic logic to show that.

Awareness is not reserved for sentient beings - that’s consciousness. The simplest quality of awareness is the vaguest indication of ‘other’. Connection, too, is not reserved for sentient beings. It’s just a relative arrangement. Molecules connect with other molecules based on their qualitative structure and energy. Lego blocks connect when you press them together in a particular arrangement. And collaboration is simply an arrangement that enables the pooling of resources. Ants collaborate, so do genetic structures. No sentience required.

As I stated earlier, this is redefining collaborate to non-agent objects and things.

Well, if we don't get up and survive, we die.. So fine.. Let's all die by passively doing nothing and sitting. This is pretty much all this amounts to. Seeking any value structure is still DOING SOMETHING. Your philosophy does not somehow negate what I am saying about the dissatisfaction. The SEEKING is the dissatisfaction.
— schopenhauer1

Sure, eventually you will die. But do you have any idea how long you can sit there, doing nothing, before you do die? It’s at least a couple of days. And this feeling you get that is motivating you to get up after only a few minutes - what is that? It isn’t you dying, that’s for sure. That space between you wanting to get up and you dying because you didn’t - there is a lot to learn in there.

The feeling is dissatisfaction. The whole point of my thread. Some people can learn to calm this for a few hours/days.. so what.. Then they have to survive. Only very rarely do you find the ascetic who dies of voluntary starvation.. I guess it could happen, but rarely. And that being said.. there's a reason most choose not to do this! Hunger is a bitch. Restlessness too.

I’m not trying to negate anything - just suggesting a broader perspective. Seeking an alternative value structure doesn’t require us to get up. It’s not about dissatisfaction with life, but recognising inaccuracies with the help of reason.

This doesn't mean anything to me as this is stated.

you seem to be saying to me that my perspective is wrong because it doesn't take into account your (really vague) ideas of collaboration, connection, and awareness. What do you MEAN? I still don't have any concrete examples. Collaborate, connection, and be aware of WHAT!! It all sounds like there is no "there" there. And somehow you will then say, "Yes that's the point.. it's very Buddhist, cause there's no there there"... and we will talk in circles.. and then to make it more concrete you will bring in some non-analogous physics terminology that is not helpful.. So really, just give me a succinct understanding of your worldview using concrete examples. You know that pretty much whatever it is you will say, I will just counter with the fact that X goal/event is the result of our dissatisfaction... If we are to stick with the premise of this thread. BEING itself would be enough! What's the POINT to keep saying collaborate, etc..? You are trying to provide this spiritual dimension.. There is no "WE" just "bits of collaboration" that want to "collaborate" to be "fulfilled".. Perhaps it's your just-so inevitability towards "collaboration".. Your view that "collaboration" is some underlying principle that I just don't get.. Maybe because there are NO CONCRETE EXAMPLES whereby I can even look at it critically. It's a value structure YOU have simply asserted... a normative goal you have placed (COLLABORATE!).. But why?
— schopenhauer1

In the end it doesn’t matter if I think your perspective is wrong - it’s a valid perspective - but the fact that it requires you to reject valid information from others’ experiences indicates logical inaccuracies, or at least limitations. I do mean awareness, connection and collaboration of everything - supplying concrete examples only gives you permission to ignore, isolate and exclude what is not concrete. This is what unsettles you - that I’m not fitting my philosophy into your conceptual worldview. Yes, our individual conceptualisation of BEING (which excludes qualitative or aesthetic ideas) could be consolidated into a linear structure (by isolating the quality of the individual), and then reduced (by ignoring qualitative structure) to a binary: satisfaction or dissatisfaction. But what’s the point of this reduction? How useful is it for any life that we manifest, given the inaccuracies? Or is it simply an attempt to attain satisfaction at a moralistic level?

You already have a normative view by saying "How useful is it?".. You are already assuming something we MUST do (that is be useful, do something useful).. Hmm, what could this "useful" be? Is that to be more satisfied? Haha.. To create more "satisfactory" situations for others? Anyways, it doesn't matter.. That's not where I'm getting at. Rather, dissatisfaction is more of a restless feeling that one must DO anything.. Get "caught up" in something. Thus like Schopenhauer's pendulum, survival and boredom kind of do describe a large part of what is going on with human motivations.

And why should this concept of BEING be enough? Even Kant recognised the qualitative variability of our conceptual BEING in an affected relation to the aesthetic idea. Our process of conceptualisation does not accurately concretise the reality of our experience - there IS an existential dimension beyond it - whether you call it ‘spiritual’ or something else. And it is a choice you make to ignore or increase awareness of it, to isolate it as ‘spiritual’ or simply seek connection, and to exclude it as non-conceptual (no concrete examples) or find ways to collaborate with what is effectively a qualitative possibility of ‘oneness’.

Not sure what you are saying. Rather, Schopenhauer was saying that we are dissatisfied and that just "being" would be enough to prevent our NEED to move from X to Y.. To need to survive, to need to be caught up in this or that game, pleasure, pursuit, goal, etc.

Collaboration is not a goal - it’s a possibility: the absolute, paradoxical quality and energy of pure logic. I’m not saying the term is a perfect summary - it obviously loses something when isolated from its paradoxical relation, from ‘exclusion’, and from awareness/ignorance and connection/isolation, but these are the most accurate terms and relations I have found.

Don't know what you mean here. Energy of pure logic? What?? Again, obfuscation. Rather, it sounds as I described earlier.. The Steamrolling Collaboration wants its way!!

Need, need, need, must, must, must. You have such a compulsion around all this.
Birth is compulsory, making an effort is compulsory, compulsion is compulsory ... A fullblown compulsory compulsion.


You could, perhaps, cut all this compulsory compulsion short, and conclude that existence itself is burdensome. Much like Early Buddhism or Ecclesiastes. — baker

Indeed it is.. Existence is a burden, hence efforts to prevent it for others. Meanwhile, we just have to "deal with it" in the ways that we do. Once born, we are "stuck" in the position of making a choice at all, once we reach an age where we can self-consciously make these decisions. These are the problems Existentialists describe.. Absurdity, isolation, doing something but with no inherent reason other than taking on arbitrary reasons (e.g. it's my role, it's what is expected, it's what everyone else seems to do, etc.). This is often called "authenticity" in behavior. What choice to make when faced with life's dictates (the situatedness we are presented?).

I’m trying to draw your attention to the qualitative structural difference between actual and potential. It’s not that I don’t agree with the definition - I think it’s fine, too - I’m just trying to point out that this definition has more to it than you realise. Because a ‘person’ must potentially exist prior to procreation - just NOT in a particular state. And there is no definition of procreation that can avoid this distinction. — Possibility

Ok, I wouldn't have a problem with the idea that for every possible coupling of two procreative people, there is a potential for a person to exist as a result. I don't think that's really a metaphysical epiphany or anything.. It should be noted that this "potential" can be talked about intelligibly in regards to antinatalism and procreation.

Existence is commonly assumed to be four-dimensional only - that’s the structure of language use, of the universe, of this particular state we’re in. Yet we can only be aware of this state and this language-use if our existence extends beyond four-dimensional structure. This is a fundamental logic of qualitative geometry. So it is rational to assume that a person, a consciousness, is a five-dimensional (potential) relation to BEING. And this faculty by which we render or describe a four-dimensional structure must at least logically structure this five-dimensional potentiality, from the possible existence of a six-dimensional relation.

I have no idea how you are using the word "dimension" here.

Regardless of what we can prove empirically, the logical structure of possible existence extends, at least qualitatively, to six dimensions. It’s easy enough to ignore, but the logic is undeniable. This is the foundation of my philosophy.

Yep, still no clue. This sounds like neologistic uses of the word dimension... What is "qualatitive geometry"? What field is that from? Is that your own thing? What are your inspirations for such things? Just reading physics and then trying to make physics qualitative? Trying to square the circle? Have you solved the mind/body problem! Well, shit, they should stop writing books and just look at your posts! This sounds vaugely Whiteheadian. Have you read any Whitehead by chance? If not, you should.

So when we talk about what we ‘bring into existence’ or ‘cause to be in a particular state’, I would argue that we’re not bringing it from non-existence, or causing existence, per se. We’re manifesting a four-dimensional state of existence - from five-dimensional potentiality that includes but is not limited to our own potential existence. I don’t mind if you say ‘bring’ or ‘cause’ - so long as you recognise that what you mean by ‘existence’ in this sense is four-dimensional actuality.

Wait, so are you just trying to say that potential things "exist" in some way? Okay, sort of get it now.. I just wasn't understanding the use of "dimension". Seems an odd metaphysical choice of words. Yes, for every set of relations, there could be contingencies that go one way or another based on circumstances. What we should NOT do (and not sure if you are yet) is anthropomorphosize this "potential" as if it has a mind and we are "Its" pawns. In other words, it seems you want the Potential.. to be Inevitable or a Story that is written by Conneting/Collaborating/Awareness.. And we are part of this.. It's all too Woo for me. and it is also too much like a modern form of Natural Reason.. We are just following the dictates of Potential writing its Story.. Thus the problems I mention (which you think are just a scheme and not really "real", but just my dichotomy), are dissolved in your steamrolling Potential. Look how that works out in your favor. Nothing is "real" except this Steamrolling Potential, that must Potentiate No Matter What!! Humans be damned! Fuck humans and their suffering and forced agenda to join the program? Steamrolling Potential needs to use us! Maybe you are closer to Schopenhauer's conception of Will.. We are manifestations of Will and can't help but be its pawn in its striving-for-nothing game! Schop may not have been a true antinatalist BECAUSE of his views of the inevitiability of Will, but that is debatable. He might have shrugged efforts of antinatalism off by saying, "The Will is going to Will despite your efforts!" But not sure.. Anyways, clearly my view is we CAN REBEL against the dictates of Will/Potential or whatever metaphysical phrase happens to fit your model for overriding principle.

Well, last I checked, sex under certain conditions or artificial means are the two main ways that "lead to procreation". How is that not something you can isolate?
— schopenhauer1

‘Sex under certain conditions’ isolates human behaviour from these ‘conditions’ under which it occurs. I’m saying that when you isolate it like this, you don’t have an accurate or objective model, because both ‘sex’ and ‘certain conditions’ are highly variable in relation to each other. There is much more complexity to ‘sex under certain conditions’ than this description suggests.

Not sure what you're getting at. Is this Steamrolling Potential again, getting its way? No matter what human agents decide Potential will get its human participants in its Story? Is that it? Please...

As far as intentional awareness, all the best intentions and upbringing cannot prevent suffering, harm, and certainly still does not overcome the direct violation of dignity in causing someone to follow an agenda (i.e. the socio-culutral-physical agenda of human suvival/thriving in order to not die, despite the fact that we might want things differently.)
— schopenhauer1

Intentional engagement with potential may not prevent all suffering and harm, but its capacity to reduce suffering and harm extends well beyond that of intentionally isolating potential. The dignity of someone’s potential is not violated by actualising it. We may ‘cause’ a potentiality to BE in a particular state of ‘following an agenda’, but once they are aware of an agenda as such (which as a parent should be our aim), we are no longer the ‘cause’ of them following it.

Absolutely false. The kid's awareness of the agenda doesn't make the parent's awareness not a factor anymore. The parents KNOWS that the child will X, Y, Z.. If you think otherwise, explain that.. But it's not.. We live in the situatedness of a socio-culturo-physical reality and humans must abide by that lest slow death by X, or suicide.. Stop playing me here... You can't outwit this fact, sorry. You would REALLY have to explain, in detail how awareness of the agenda by the kid, negates the parent's putting the child in the forced dictates of the agenda (lest suicide)? My claim stands, procreation is a POLITICAL move made on behalf of said child.

And in case you were wondering - this is not to say that we SHOULD actualise someone’s potential - only that we are not necessarily violating someone’s dignity by doing so - so long as it is their potential we intend them to realise, not our own. Their potential remains intact, whether we engage with it or not. The only difference is in our perception of it.

False again. You could never have consented to that "potential child" before you actualized them. In almost every other realm, making such a profound decision for someone of this magnitude would not result in a positive (yes go ahead and do it) action on that potential person (who would exist due to your action..) otherwise. Also, it IS forcing an agenda onto someone and all the harms and sufferings of life. That is an indignity indeed. It is not a "gift". Gifts do not come with such strings. Gifts don't come with such profound collateral damage.

Having said that, I do get what you’re saying: the potential of an individual seems infinite in relation to the sum of any random actualisation. But the potential of an individual also varies in relation to any randomly perceived potentiality. So an individual is then a relative value, which seems less infinite in itself, but only if you consider value to be linear (one-dimensional) in structure, and infinity to be quantitative. Which I obviously don’t.

Carlo Rovelli once described the universe as consisting not of objects in time, but of ‘interacting events’, or relative temporal structures. Time, he says, is not linear except in our localised experience of it. We can consider potentiality in the same way: the universe consisting not of events or living systems interacting along a single linear structure of value or potential, but rather of interacting potentialities or relative value structures.

Okay, so what does this matter to anything about procreation? You are trying to square the circle again by talking in circles around the problem.. If we can just discuss "potentiality" enough, maybe procreation can be seen as "good" or at least "not bad" because [place dimension talk here and potential talk there, etc. etc.]. To me, it's this game of Steamrolling Potentiality is going to have it's way! Next, usually you move to the idea that see.. "There is no suffering, just potential, so stop talking about suffering!" Stop it.

Oh, this is rich.. So, no, that is not what I am doing. I am forcing, literally NOTHING onto ANYONE. Not procreating forces nothing on no one. Nor am I advocating my philosophy through force. HOWEVER, this isn't the case for the other side of the equation. For the pro-procreators, this definitely IS forcing someone into a situation.. In fact that's one of my major points.. Someone is always harmed in procreation and is always caused to follow the agenda, and can never have been consented de facto (I just say "forced" but you will probably be pedantic about it as a red herring). However, in the pro-procreator camp, there is always collateral damage. There is always some kind of "force" going on. Someone who is caused to deal with this or that (I'll just say the socio-cultural-survival agenda).
— schopenhauer1

You are evaluating every act in relation to the apparently infinite value of a consolidated, individual potential against any attempt to actualise it as a living system, and rejecting all other possible value structures. When I describe an alternative perspective, you simply impose your own value structure on what I’ve written, and argue that “this is what you’re really saying, and it’s immoral”. Yes, impose - not necessarily on me, but on what I’ve written. You might consider it to be an equation with only two sides (yours and the wrong one), but my point is that there is more to this supposed ‘force’ than you seem willing to consider - more to causation, more to value, and more to the individual.

Well I'm sorry, I don't speak your jargon.. and it is a lot of self-referential jargon.. You have to admit that.. You define very little and speak in pseudo-science talk for philosophical discourse which muddies the waters.. So if I'm "imposing" something, it is the ordinary language game as it applies to the problems presented in my thread (mainly around pessimism). I am "imposing" the language of usual phenomeonological experience.. A human that is born into the world and MUST do X, Y, Z, and experiences a relatively standard Human Condition (I speak of this dissatisfaction..), and who is FORCED to follow an agenda (as there is LITERALLY no other alternative). Of the fact that humans KNOW we can want something different that is CONTRARY to the dictates of our SITUATEDNESS of the socio-culutral-physical environment that are the boundary conditions mapped out for us. I speak of people not actualizing the potential of more people, even though it's possible to not create more collateral damage that those people experience.. Things like this. I don't know how your self-referential potential steamrolling metaphysics really plays into it other than to obfuscate these very immediate points of the human experience.

I agree a lot in the first part there, but you turn vague when you say "increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration beyond our own value structures". What has led you to those three words/concepts? Did you read it somewhere? Did it come to you in an epiphany? What is your influence there if at all?
— schopenhauer1

The notions of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion come from an exploration of ‘will’ - as the faculty by which all actions are determined and initiated - as well as the structural relations between atomic, molecular, chemical, biological, conscious and self-conscious systems. What distinguishes each of these systems from each other is directly related to qualitative dimensional geometry and these three ‘gates’ of interaction. The carbon atom, for example, demonstrates the most ideal balance between consolidated atomic stability and variable molecular awareness, connection and collaboration among all the elements. The part it plays in the evolution of the universe is no accident.

I know that Schopenhauer does this himself, but curious to know why you would make atoms, molecules, etc. have words used by an agent (something that chooses)? It sounds again like Woo here. Even if we take into account the randomness of quantum physics, it would be a category error to say atoms "choose" this or that". They do not "collaborate", they simply follow internal forces that are part of their essential characteristic.. Carbon atoms with valence electrons match with that hydrogen valence electron due to how atomic physics works, not because they made a choice to "collaborate". Only complex agents do that. Even ants or bees don't "collaborate".. They work together, but aren't choosing to do so.. It is part of their instinct. I see collaboration as a sort of "choosing" to work together. Certainly atoms aren't "aware", though I guess you can say they are "connecting" in a physical proximity kind of way and due to the force that accompanies electrons and their structure.

And more importantly, what does that even mean in the context that we are discussing? I am simply saying that harm and suffering exists. So does the fact that we cannot escape the forced agenda, lest suicide. Collaborating does not take away this fact. I am not against it.. I like to read about scientific discoveries.. I like to read history. I like to listen to music.. I can talk with others about these things. I can discuss philosophy on this forum.. None of this is relevant to "dissolving" the problems away that I am discussing. You can't outwit this.
— schopenhauer1

I agree that harm and suffering exist. But I disagree that we cannot escape this apparently ‘forced’ agenda - there are many other options besides self-ignorant compliance or self-excluding suicide. The three gates I’ve proposed provide us with those options.

Finally, I think we are getting to what you really are trying to say.. But it's what I expected.. Just more of this kind of therapy.. But you don't give concrete examples, so still can't even say much on it, cause you aren't saying much.. It seems my critique still applies.. This is the middle-class therapy for following the agenda, but with enthusiasm because COLLABORATE!! :D :D!! Artistic, physical, business, achievements.. This is the con of the Nietzsche and his ubermensch.. Have you read of the Eternal Return? You mine as well just say that.. It's the same thing.. This Potential talk is basically warmed-over Nietzsche in a pseudo-scientific context.. But I still say Hegel is in there too with the whole Steamrolling Potential.. that HAS to have its way.. Humans being vessels to work with Steamrolling Potential to make things HAPPEN!!! (What we don't know.. cause you are going to be vague and there is no "there" there and Buddhist talk so you don't have to to be concrete because BUDDHISM!! There is no SELF!!).. And somehow you will evade concrete answers as that is the philosophy of the people who just don't GET IT..

Reading and listening to music is increasing awareness. Talking with others and most discussions of philosophy are connection. Collaboration is maximising a collective efficiency of limited resources. It takes the focus off the individual and risks non-existence to build on this vague, qualitative sense of a higher dimensional level of existence. This is how atoms developed into molecules, how molecules developed into chemical systems, then into biological systems, how biological systems developed consciousness, and how conscious systems developed a self.

This is all bullshit to me.. You are JUSTIFYING putting more forced agendas by REITERATING a FORCED AGENDA..that is to say.. WORK TOGETHER FOR A CAUSE! So it is the warmed-over middle class philosophy that I thought it was when taking away all the obfuscation.

It’s the NOT not true combined with “based on a supernatural revelation” In other words, it cannot not fit that revelation. Everything MUST incorporate that revelation and be apologetics for it.

Again with the implicit... Let me reiterate once again that I am NOT arguing FOR procreation, and I am NOT saying that we should procreate because we should collaborate. So STOP misrepresenting my position - I am getting sick of repeating myself on this point. Can you honestly not see that collaboration does not necessitate procreation? I will not condemn procreation itself as immoral, because I don’t believe it is, but nor do I advocate it as a necessarily moral act. This is a false dichotomy, an illusion limited by value structure.

I can see collaboration doesn't necessitate procreation. I do not agree obviously with all you said. But I still don't get what you are going on about with this collaboration.. What's the point of saying we should collaborate? Is that like your idiosyncratic way of working together to produce something? Clearly you are making a normative statement.. And it really just sounds like the middle-class idea of entrepeneurship and so-called "constructive projects"... I mean.. Achievement by working with others.. I mean this is pretty pedestrian stuff.. It's one of many parts of existence.. I don't get your trying to reify it. People tend to allay their boredom by "connecting" with other people. Some people use this "connection" to "collaborate" on projects. And by doing so, they become more "aware" about how something works, or make something new that other people become "aware" of.. Okie dokie.. Moving on....

In considering procreation we need to recognise that it is the extent of our own ignorance, isolation and exclusion - of which we cannot be more than vaguely aware - that WILL contribute to the suffering of a child if we choose to go ahead. I get that you consider this to be a morality issue, but here’s the thing: in the event that we choose NOT to procreate, we have not taken any step towards reducing any overall contribution to suffering in our own life. We will continue to interact in the world, distributing the same effort and attention with the same level of ignorance, isolation and exclusion as we would have had we directed it towards a child. Preventing one person in the world doesn’t reduce suffering on its own - it’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Antinatalism isolates and excludes a consolidated potential for suffering, which is not the same thing.

You mine as well say to just be a productive citizen and look to Dudley Dooright.. Celebrate the moments of our lives.. and all the other slogans... Every day we go to work or try to survive with other humans were are doing these things.. So, the fuck, what?? It's just how we survive. Cultural knowledge gathered through humans interacting over time...

Existence even prior to the Big Bang does tend weakly towards awareness, connection and collaboration overall, but this tendency is qualitative - fundamentally unquantifiable. Every experience of suffering is a result of some ignorance, isolation or exclusion, and yet it is through this quantitative consolidation that existence is able to eventually develop an understanding of itself. Non-existence isn’t the only way to keep from hurting others. One existence intentionally maximising awareness, connection and collaboration with experiences of suffering has the potential to reduce suffering beyond what is prevented by one individual non-existence. This is the fundamentally misunderstood truth of both Buddha and Jesus.

You have no idea what happened before the Big Bang, any more than most scientists.. and certainly has nothing to do with the qualitative aspects of connection, awareness, or collaboration.. all things that can and should only be attributed to sentient beings of a certain type and complexity.

What do you mean by "awareness, connection and collaboration with experiences of suffering".. you are always speaking in vague notions.

A dissatisfied mind cannot force us to get up. Neither can this so-called agenda of survival. We choose to prioritise values such as survival, but the reality is that ‘survival’ for us is only ever a temporary achievement, as is a ‘satisfied’ mind. Which means they aren’t really values at all. So, what do we gain by this illusory value structure, except a sense of the ‘individual’ as infinitely valuable? Intentionally experiencing this state of ‘boredom’ without feeling that we must ‘reject some forced agenda’ to do so is precisely what Buddhist meditation is showing us about the human condition. The point is to get past this feeling that we have to get up, we have to survive - and in that state realise our own capacity to not follow any so-called ‘set agendas’. To recognise them as illusion, and seek a more accurate value structure - rationally developing a self from an understanding of the energy of affect in relation to the quality of ideas.

Well, if we don't get up and survive, we die.. So fine.. Let's all die by passively doing nothing and sitting. This is pretty much all this amounts to. Seeking any value structure is still DOING SOMETHING. Your philosophy does not somehow negate what I am saying about the dissatisfaction. The SEEKING is the dissatisfaction.

It’s not just collaboration - it’s maximising awareness, connection and collaboration which brings all of existence towards an absolute, infinite interconnectedness. But that’s effectively in paradoxical relation with absolute non-existence. This is why I persist in these frustrating discussions with you, because in many ways I find we are in a similar philosophical position - except that one of us is focused on a meta-philosophy, while the other is focused on an ethical framework. I guess I’m curious as to why it seems to you like I’m somehow denying your experience when I argue for a broader perspective.

I have no idea.. you seem to be saying to me that my perspective is wrong because it doesn't take into account your (really vague) ideas of collaboration, connection, and awareness. What do you MEAN? I still don't have any concrete examples. Collaborate, connection, and be aware of WHAT!! It all sounds like there is no "there" there. And somehow you will then say, "Yes that's the point.. it's very Buddhist, cause there's no there there"... and we will talk in circles.. and then to make it more concrete you will bring in some non-analogous physics terminology that is not helpful.. So really, just give me a succinct understanding of your worldview using concrete examples. You know that pretty much whatever it is you will say, I will just counter with the fact that X goal/event is the result of our dissatisfaction... If we are to stick with the premise of this thread. BEING itself would be enough! What's the POINT to keep saying collaborate, etc..? You are trying to provide this spiritual dimension.. There is no "WE" just "bits of collaboration" that want to "collaborate" to be "fulfilled".. Perhaps it's your just-so inevitability towards "collaboration".. Your view that "collaboration" is some underlying principle that I just don't get.. Maybe because there are NO CONCRETE EXAMPLES whereby I can even look at it critically. It's a value structure YOU have simply asserted... a normative goal you have placed (COLLABORATE!).. But why?

Bring: Cause (someone or something) to come to a place. Cause someone or something to BE in a particular state or condition.

The implication in this verb is that they were in a different state or condition prior to birth. So to ‘bring into existence’ is to imply that non-existence of something is a state or condition. can you explain that? — Possibility

I think that definition works just fine. The parent causes a new person to BE in a particular state when they procreate them. So they are "bringing" them into existence. But even if you don't agree with that definition, use whatever verb you want for that phenomenon. This tangent is unnecessary, and seems like an odd red herring. Use the word "cause to exist" if you want. What's the point of wasting time on this pedantic debate though? Was it really unclear what I mean that parents are agents that cause a new person to exist by their actions?

You can’t isolate ‘human behaviour’ and expect to render an accurate or objective model of ‘activities that lead to procreation’. And when you talk about ‘making a choice to engage’, what are those activities, and to what extent are they intentionally engaged? And I’ve already repeatedly explained that I’m not arguing FOR procreation as necessarily a good thing. I think there needs to be considerably more awareness of what one’s intentional engagement sets in motion, before evaluating the decision. If that occurred, then far less people would choose to procreate, and those who do would be more intentionally engaged in the process.

Well, last I checked, sex under certain conditions or artificial means are the two main ways that "lead to procreation". How is that not something you can isolate?

As far as intentional awareness, all the best intentions and upbringing cannot prevent suffering, harm, and certainly still does not overcome the direct violation of dignity in causing someone to follow an agenda (i.e. the socio-culutral-physical agenda of human suvival/thriving in order to not die, despite the fact that we might want things differently.)

There is much more to procreating people than the occurrence of suffering and harm - this is your reductionist evaluation, and that’s fine, but you have no right to impose this on others as some objective morality. I’m not laying blame, and I’m not denying your experience. I’m simply saying that there is more to a conscious existence than you are describing here, and choosing not to follow a particular socio-cultural agenda does not necessarily entail premature death, pessimism or antinatalism.

Oh, this is rich.. So, no, that is not what I am doing. I am forcing, literally NOTHING onto ANYONE. Not procreating forces nothing on no one. Nor am I advocating my philosophy through force. HOWEVER, this isn't the case for the other side of the equation. For the pro-procreators, this definitely IS forcing someone into a situation.. In fact that's one of my major points.. Someone is always harmed in procreation and is always caused to follow the agenda, and can never have been consented de facto (I just say "forced" but you will probably be pedantic about it as a red herring). However, in the pro-procreator camp, there is always collateral damage. There is always some kind of "force" going on. Someone who is caused to deal with this or that (I'll just say the socio-cultural-survival agenda).

No, no, and no.

Maximising awareness, connection and collaboration, in theory, makes the problem not so much ‘go away’ as cease to be considered a ‘problem’. Procreating more people (while neither good nor bad necessarily) is not an efficient way to collaborate at all, given our capacity for collaborative understanding in potentiality. The more we learn to collaborate, the less we will perceive a ‘need’ to procreate.

Eh, okay.. that is sort of what I am advocating so maybe we can agree..

What is harmful is the notion that any child I bring into the world is perceived as a property of myself - to become only as aware, connected and collaborative as I find valuable or rewarding to me; or as an extension of myself - their individual value rendering my own potentially insignificant or redundant. This is how most people raise their children, despite stated intentions to ‘make the world a better place’ or ‘give them the opportunities I didn’t have’. They very soon find themselves in a power struggle with an alternative value structure (rather like you assume is going on between us). The sooner we learn, as a parent or anyone, that it’s not about power but about increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond our own value structures, the greater and more variable our capacity to reduce suffering overall for the child, for ourselves, and for any future interactions.

I agree a lot in the first part there, but you turn vague when you say "increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration beyond our own value structures". What has led you to those three words/concepts? Did you read it somewhere? Did it come to you in an epiphany? What is your influence there if at all?

And more importantly, what does that even mean in the context that we are discussing? I am simply saying that harm and suffering exists. So does the fact that we cannot escape the forced agenda, lest suicide. Collaborating does not take away this fact. I am not against it.. I like to read about scientific discoveries.. I like to read history. I like to listen to music.. I can talk with others about these things. I can discuss philosophy on this forum.. None of this is relevant to "dissolving" the problems away that I am discussing. You can't outwit this.

The fact that some commenters here can’t seem to separate the Gospel authors and their familiarity with Greek, rhetoric, and literary genres similar to Gospels (for bougie Greek audience) versus the Palestinian Jewish characters it’s about and setting the stories take place in is astounding.

You're conjecturing about topics that fall into the category of "the origin of the world", and you're quite predictably, vexed by doing so.

Perhaps you're not quite vexed enough yet ... — baker

Ha, I get it. But I am not a Buddhist, and actually think that Schop's attempt to point to asceticism is too optimistic, believe it or not. There is no escape.. And even if there was, my grip remains.. We are at X place, and we need to be at Y place (Enlightenment), that in itself is a situation I find troubling.. The origin I place squarely on being a human born into the world as humans develop "selves" by mere fact of our species relation with language and the environment.

I don't know how to help you any longer. It seems like you're at a crossroads and decisive action is required on your part ... — baker

Right, but that's just the thing. My gripe is that why is decisive action even needed? There is putting people in a place they are.. and then they have to deal with getting to a different place (even if it is all attachment or delusion or whatever). It is this scheme I am examining.

OK, since you look for a serious confrontation on the subject, I will point out the weaknesses and unsound points in your long quote of Schopenhauer. I do that, and put extra time on this, only because it's your topic. Otherwise, I don't even see the need for it ...
I hope that my time is not wasted! — Alkis Piskas

Oh boy, I get to discuss things with you :roll:, the almighty Alkis who's gonna really show me how it is!

1) "man is a compound of needs and necessities": This is an absurd notion. Man does not consist of needs, he is not needs. He has needs. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, you show how you don't know much about Schopenhauer. Look up his idea of Will. But also, you might not want to take his statements as "literal". He is describing the condition of being a human with needs and wants.. It is an essential part of the conscious person living in the world.

2) "even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness": Too vague, an "empty" statement. What needs are (to be) satisfied? Some of them in particular? The more important ones? All of them (which is just impossible)? — Alkis Piskas

Well yes, because you can put any need or you want in there and it results in the same thing. Once you obtained a goal, filled your belly, gotten your pleasure, etc. then what? Well, he claims..a restless dissatisfaction (i.e. his view of boredom).

3) "nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom": A totally arbitrary, skewed, biased conclusion. And more importantly, it does not reflect what actually happens in life. How often can you see such an ending, a course of action, a result? But most importantly, can anyone satisfy all his needs? Almost impossible, I think. — Alkis Piskas

You REALLY don't understand Schopenhauer so I might stop it right here but.. Schop thinks that behind everything is a striving Will. However, one doesn't need to buy his metaphysics to understand his epistemology. We as humans experience a wide range of preferences we'd like satisfied.. We get hungry, we generally like not being too cold or hot, etc.. we work towards goals in our society to get that. In an industrial society that might look like work and consumption for goods and services. But then we aren't just robots that work and that's it.. We have a dissatisfaction with just BEING, we must DO SOMETHING.. ANYTHING AT ALL. So you do X, Y, Z. He is interested why we need to do any activity, any goal, and thing at all in the first place.

4) "This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself": Well, nothing has been proved based on the above. Then, the belief that "existence has no real value in itself" is shared by a lot of people --including myself, I am "the first" to tell that life has no purpose in itself-- but this has nothing to do with any kind of emotion. You don't have to reach despair to realize that! It' a rational conclusion, reachable by simple logic. — Alkis Piskas

No it's not just that. He's saying that BEING isn't enough for us. We are dissatisfied with just BEING. We must do "something". This dissatisfaction with just being is akin to what he means by boredom. It is an existential type of boredom that he is discussing, not just being "bored" as an emotional state of being temporarily not interested in something. It is a general dissatisfaction.

Instead, I have talked about my experience on the subject of emotions, what has happened to me, but mainly to people I have worked with and help them in handling their emotions. The data from all this, paired always with critical reasoning, are more valuable than just an analysis based mainly on concepts and very little on experience. — Alkis Piskas

Yeah and none of it gets at what he's talking about. Your idea of boredom and how he is using it (in a more existential way) are just different. You are trying to conflate the two, or diffuse it into your idea of "one emotion of many" and he is talking about the restless/dissatisfied animal/human nature that is at the heart of motivations. There is something missing that we are always needing to fulfill, otherwise we would have no need for need or want.

Individuals are not ‘brought into existence’ from somewhere else they’d rather be. — Possibility

I never said that! This is a straw man.. I said they were simply brought into existence. I didn't say that to imply that they existed prior to their birth, so stop.

They are ‘conceived’ in potentiality by mostly unintentional collaboration of existence. This conception manifests life via lots of small and seemingly insignificant choices or ‘willing’ collaboration, until such time as there is sufficient intentional awareness, connection and collaboration among willing aspects to construct a ‘self’ as a local consolidation of choice in potentiality. But this ‘self’ is not identical to the conception from which your life manifest in the first place. Although in language it would make sense to consider them the same ‘individual’ subject, it is this ‘flattening’ of what is a more complex potentiality for the purpose of language that leads to conflicting value structures.

Completely disagree. This is not what is going on. An agent is making a choice to procreate or at the least, engage in activities that lead to procreation. Nothing more is needed here in your model. I don't have to look at neurons or quantum physics to make this claim. It has to do at the level of human behavior. To start making it otherwise, is to obfuscate. Why are you doing that? What is the point? To be clever? Do you think because it is so simple, it can't be right, that we can actually talk at the level of agents making choices in regards to procreation and evaluating whether it is good to make a decision to bring someone else into the world?

Well of course it sounds incoherent - this is the conflict. And I don’t see why experiencing suffering and harm is necessarily someone’s fault. You’re looking to attribute intentionality in a moralistic structure, but you need to reconcile the conflicting value structures first - which is as easy as reconciling quantum physics with general relativity. Your solution is to exclude one in favour of the other - and then fight to deny anyone’s experience which might suggest the reality you’ve decided on might be ignoring aspects of the truth. Hmm... and yet I’m the one accused of gaslighting.

Experiencing suffering and harm isn't "someone's fault", but procreating people where it is known that suffering and harm occur can be construed as a choice that an agent takes. The universe did not breed me (unless you mean in the non-useful-here evolutionary sense of the term). Humans have agency and can decide not to produce more people that can and will suffer and are forced into X, Y, Z situations as a result. What I mean by that is that the situatedness of the world is already such that people have to follow this socio-culutral-physical agenda of human suvival/thriving in order to not die, despite the fact that we might want things differently. The only thing you can do to counter this is say that "It's YOUR fault for not learning to go along with the program" OR to simply say, "None of this is real, so you aren't really suffering". Both of these are false.. and yes I will say, existentially gaslighting answers to the problem I am presenting.

Also, I am waiting to hear the profoundness of this "truth" you hold. Collaboration makes all this go away, is that it? Like procreating more people who suffer isn't bad because Collaboration? Procreating more people who suffer isn't bad because, "it's only my reality and not real"? That it too? Just a yes or no would be fine... and then a SHORT summary of why or why not in a COHERENT fashion that isn't self-referential.

All choices are mediated by a person whose will, values, reasons, goals, etc are continually reconstructing as they are born and interacting. This variability can be mapped, just as Copernicus mapped the solar system without leaving Earth.

Fine collaborating about pessimism then. Awareness of the forced agenda we are all a part of. Why force people into life? Any answer implicates you mam. It implicates that you too have an agenda for people..
— schopenhauer1

How about collaborating between pessimism and optimism? Or awareness of a broader agenda that is not forcing a consolidated ‘individual’ into a quantitatively limited, temporal existence, but rather opportunity for a potentially constructed ‘self’ to manifest actual collaboration with existence? You may choose to limit your collaboration to increasing pessimism, but your comments here have been denying my capacity to choose optimism, or to move freely between the two, simply because it doesn’t fit with your own limited perspective. So stop trying to accuse me of gaslighting.

So I believe the bolded is your main premise if we take all the other distractors away. My point to this is that this has an implicit "political" goal in mind. Political not in the idea of government per se, but a sort of social agenda that other people must follow. I would say that it's find to hold a view on this or that social arrangement.. However, once procreation enters the picture, it becomes a political agenda on behalf of someone else. See, YOU want X (in this case collaboration with existence), and the individual, who is an agent, has to experience existence and thus will suffer. They not only suffer, they are forced to follow the agenda of being alive at all.. That is to say, if let's say an industrialized economy.. it more or less follows a rather predictable fashion of work for money for survival and consume stuff, get more comfortable with environment, and entertain oneself in that economic framework. Things. like that. There is obviously a lot more to say on it, but I am giving you the rudimentary here. The antinatalist/pessimist doesn't want to set agendas for others to follow. We may be alive ourselves, but we don't continue the chain. You can try to obfuscate and say that somehow "existence collaborates its way anyway", but as an agent we can individually not participate in procreating that suffering and agenda onto another person who experiences it and must follow it. I choose and promote not choosing for others to put them in these situations. Not existing hurts no one, and deprives no one. Existing hurts someone, and the collateral damage of suffering will take place.

Besides which, as is the theme of this thread, boredom I believe to be a powerful understanding of the standard human condition. That is to say, we cannot generally, sit too long and meditate on nothingness all day. We have to get up. The agenda of survival and our own dissatisfied minds makes it the case. You can try to distract from this point by bringing up some "higher truth" of "attachment" versus the action itself, but I think my point still remains. Not sure if you will make that move (usually attached to Buddhist concept of suffering) but just addressing it now in case.

You don’t want to hear my philosophy - you want me to tell you who I think is to blame for this situation we’re in. But I’m not laying blame. If you were interested in my philosophy at all, you would have been reading what I actually wrote, instead of reducing all my words to some moralistic stance you can argue against. If you genuinely want to hear my philosophy, then go back and re-read my posts, and then discuss those words, rather than what your mediating self feels that I’m saying.

All I get from your philosophy is we are in the great "collaboration" scheme. That doesn't tell me much. It's like saying, "The world is made of fluctuating X". That doesn't tell me much as far as what I am discussing. String theory, for example, doesn't really tell me anything other than perhaps some scientific points about how we can interpret the makeup of the universe given the evidence and math that we have at the moment and through our historical development.

who has offered us the opportunity to discuss about all these things --Thanks!-- talks about a subject, "boredom", about which, as I can see, has very little knowledge. And unfortunately, he doesn't seem to want to learn more ... — Alkis Piskas

Hey, I just don't need to engage in unnecessary tangents that don't understand what I mean by, boredom. Here is a quote that encapsulates it:

The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious. — Schopenhauer

That is to say, we would feel no need for ANYTHING as mere BEING would satisfy us. But it doesn't. Survival and boredom rule our world. We need goals to achieve, things to occupy our minds.

Right, but getting to nirvana is a sort of discipline no? I’m saying this is one more burden, one of the do (not do) of Buddhism.

If there’s a delusion of self there’s being non deluded but that takes X thing that one must deal with like everything else from being born at all..hence my pessimism of even Buddhism which ironically is a kind of path forward from its own pessimistic evaluations

So in your view of Buddhism, is there a goal of deconstruction of self?

Not sure what you’re getting at. My view is that self may be constructed but we can’t help but to construct a self. Was there something you wanted to critique or add?