Maybe you could start by making an actual argument with evidence? — Tom Storm

It is, of course a mere dogma that identity is or ought to be unitary, and that dogma, that demands that 'other' voices be silenced, does tend to make those voices antagonistic and sometimes violent; which then becomes the 'evidence' of pathology. — unenlightened

This was the actual argument I started with, which you passed by, and continue to pass by. The evidence is already linked to on the hearing voices network site, that when 'voices' are engaged with and responded to, they are less likely to be negative and violent.

a determinedly negative view you've put based on what seems to be prejudice. — Tom Storm

Do you have some evidence for that? I have presented a particular criticism of psychiatry that it legitimises unitary identity and delegitimises divided identity, without any justification. Your response is not to attempt any justification, but instead to delegitimise my view by fiat and without argument. That seems to me to be prejudicial on your part.

I was talking about psychiatry, not psycho-social and peer support — Tom Storm

The distancing is noted. and it seems, therefore, that the dogma of unitary identity remains in psychiatry. and the 'support' you speak of is that condescending kind that give not an inch of power but 'allows' what was previously forbidden, because it is conveniently cheap.

The hearing voices approach is supported by all the psychiatrists and mental health services I know of here. I think it is well understood that not all voices are problematic. — Tom Storm

I'm very glad to hear it. Shame you waited for me, a rank amateur, to point it out. Such support, mind you, is a rather recent development.

In case you are unaware, there is an alternative view that is at least semi-respectable. https://www.hearing-voices.org

It is, of course a mere dogma that identity is or ought to be unitary, and that dogma, that demands that 'other' voices be silenced, does tend to make those voices antagonistic and sometimes violent; which then becomes the 'evidence' of pathology.

The queen is dead, long live the king!

It's called 'aristocracy'. It's the default system of government of which capitalism is a manifestation. The alternative is the communal ownership of wealth which is disgusting, as every schoolboy know.

Not good news, but good reporting, if you see what I mean. Here's the blog referred to: https://slantchev.wordpress.com/2022/09/25/endgame/

So the US military, DoD, and government are a collection of honest, open individuals working toward collective goals? I don't buy it. — Isaac

Nor do I. And I wasn't selling it either. Western democracies are not in a good state either, and human nature is not that different around the world. The world is in a state of collapse due to cognitive dissonance, and Putin is one amongst many.

These are the two narratives I can't seem to square. — Isaac

Think Achilles, maybe. Think every tragic hero destroyed by hubris. Think Samson, and be afraid. The dark side is always about lies, and the devil is the father of lies. But lies are parasitic on truth, and so the habitual liar destroys the world of communication that they depend on; to the extent that community continues, it establishes communication lines that exclude the liar, who is fed back the lies that he projects.

This means in some ways that there are two worlds ("two narratives", exactly), and two societies, the official vision of order, v the messy reality. The books are always cooked - like the tanks - but the tanks are never cooked in the master's books, and the masterful hero loses touch with reality.

I think one of the lessons of this war that power crazed politicos would do well to learn is that war is a cooperative venture, and relies on good communication because the chaotic situation cannot be planned for in advance. This puts any government that has undermined its lines of communication with habitual lying at a great disadvantage. Those that do not tell the truth, end up not hearing it either.

Philosophy rules them all, obviously, and adjudicates between them, and in the darkness binds them.

Please stop pressing buttons!

I assumed the game has been from the beginning (of Brexit) to bankrupt the country and then move to Panama.

I'm with @Oliver5. The EU has to have some control of its external borders; We could have agreed to stick with the single market, but we didn't, we could have stuck with the customs union but we didn't, we could have stuck with free movement but we didn't. And now there is complaint that because we don't want to cooperate on any these issue, the EU insists on having some checks on the flow of goods into its territory. How very dare they!

(I think I might have to change my handle to 'undelighted'. )

It is time folks stopped talking about religions as thought they are singular entities. They tend to start as counters to the establishment, because otherwise there would be nothing exciting or new; thus in some sense as at least, they start as moral revolutionaries. So boo to rich men and their camels, and hurrah to widows and their mites, for example. This is critical of the established religion of the temple and wants to overturn its moneychangers' tables because they are corrupt, and so on. But almost every religion either dies out or never really develops, or becomes established, because in an anarchy, no one can prevent you from forming a government.

No religion that really insists on peace can become established - Jainism, for example, but tolerance for doublethink is amazingly high, and people are quite capable of banging on about turning the other cheek whilst also banging away with their kalashnikov at anyone who disagrees.

I think the UK should get passed Brexit finally and tackle the present problems. — ssu

Unfortunately, there is no getting past Brexit, hence the slogan 'Get Brexit done'. The Irish question cannot be resolved. As long as North and South were in the EU, the border could be open and thus demilitarised, and the EU functioned as an overseer of fair play. But separation entails a border, so the options are the breakup of the UK and reunification of Ireland, or the imposition of a manned border and resumption of civil war. The current fudge of a paper border in the Irish sea pleases no one and and cannot be sustained forever.

So no deal with the US at least while Biden is king. As far as I can see, the scheme is now to bankrupt the country and move to Panama or somewhere more conducive with the takings. There is no attempt to deal with the crisis at all.

Talking of calculators:
"Nearly 100,000 Russian citizens have crossed into Kazakhstan alone since last week, the country’s interior ministry said on 27 September."
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/putin-mobilisation-russians-flee-across-borders-kazakhstan/

Estimates seem to be very variable as to how many Russians are leaving. Has anyone done any sums yet?

The evidence that belief can affect healing on a personal level is so overwhelming that it has been incorporated into science by giving the effect a name - 'the placebo effect'. If it turns out that thinking hard can make spoons bend, it will likewise become a recognised scientific fact, and given a suitable name - 'the Geller cutlery phenomenon', or whatever. Science is very open minded, and whatever can be demonstrated will be accepted.

Whenever things are consistently weird, they get renormalised. Inconsistent weirdness is dismissed.

One thing that I find odd though, is the lack of robust physicalists on the 'simulation' thread. Because if we are living in a simulation, all bets are off. The programmers can stop the program, change something and restart it. They can insert superman, or an intermittent fault to prevent the bomb exploding, or add a world teacher here and there. They can program the blindness of simulated observers to certain phenomena, or absolutely anything at all. Only those of us who have operators in the programmer's world could possibly know about such things. Funny how the old stories become believable when couched in familiar cultural language.

Just so weird. — boethius

You tried narcissist - why not upgrade to psychopath?

But props to the British for managing to find someone even more of a loose cannon than Boris. — boethius

Well thanks, but it wasn't us, and it wasn't even grassroots Conservatives, who were given the choice of madwoman of no fixed opinion, or millionaire bloody foreigner, and chose the homegrown disaster because they are majority racist.

Are you chaps having a big disagreement about the real character of "Russian identity"? Is it some kind of Jungian archetype? Is there anything remotely factual about it, apart from what people say from time to time it is? I don't get it.

National identity is nothing more than propaganda, surely. 'We' 'Brits' are 'very sad' because 'our' 'beloved Queen' has died. For fuck's sake! I've been told this 24/7 for 10 days so it must be true, and has become true because anyone can cry over a sentimental film.

Did your Mummy and Daddy not explain the facts of life to you?

The fact that there are strong, aggressive women and physically weaker, less assertive men is no evidence at all that there are not significant biological differences between men and women. — T Clark

I agree. It would be ridiculous to suggest there are no significant biological differences. What on earth made you think I suggested anything of the sort? Men almost never become pregnant.

It can't be either, if you mean by 'it' the answer to my question to you. I have already given you personal testimony that people cannot always 'obviously' distinguish the sexes. This is why they have tests in sport, and why we had a female pope. Some species do have clear markers for sex of size, or plumage or shape, but humans do not. Manboobs are generally smaller than womanboobs, but small womanboobs can be smaller than merely medium manboobs.That is to say, the boobs thing is a statistical difference. Nor does one sex have colourful plumage or horns. So we exaggerate the differences with cultural codes.

I don't think that's true. — T Clark

You are not saying anything. What is the need to differentiate the sexes by dress and hairstyle, then?

I'm saying it's because you need to know who to fight and who to fuck, and you can't always tell by size, shape, sound... If you can always tell, then there must be some other reason.

I don't think biological sexual differences are just "statistical." I think they are obvious and significant. To deny this is to ignore the evidence of your senses. — T Clark

If that were the case, there would be no need to differentiate them by artificial means such as designated clothing, hairstyles etc. In the days when I had long hair and a child in a pushchair, I was frequently mistaken for a woman from a short distance - despite the beard. Anecdotes of serious misidentifications with 'ladyboys' in foreign parts have also reached me, so I take your claim of infallibility on the subject with a deal of scepticism.

Trump claims he can declassify top secret documents just ‘by thinking about it’ — Michael

I bet he can bend spoons too, just by stroking them with his lovely little hands.

If you start with the enlightenment image of the white man as 'thinking thing', you get a physically feminised white man in relation to the physically hyper-masculine black. This results in the need for the white woman to be ultra feminine (empty-headed), to make the white man look masculine by comparison, whereas the black woman is physically the amazon. Such is Cleaver's insight, and it still rules the unconscious to a great extent.

What this means is that the question of whether gender is more so physical or mental (cultural/ brain chemical) is already racialised. It already depends on which racial stereotype is being considered, and it is usually the white one.

War is insanity. Each side accusing the other of insanity is part of the war. Can one speak of insanity sanely?

A casual glance at this forum reveals numerous questions people ask themselves and others. — Xtrix

[snip]

Therefore, is what is needed for better philosophy actually a fasting and detoxification of thought? — Xtrix

Observation, [consideration], question. Such is the structure of a thought, that invites further thought, even as it questions the value of thought. So let's think about it.

It's kind of odd, in a away, to be looking a a site like this, obscure minority place, and of course made of nothing but verbal constructions of thought, and finding significance there. One cannot know how many folk read the op and have no thought to answer the question or consider the matter; one only sees the thoughts of those others provoked to more thought.

I look through the fridge and the food cupboards, have a think and make a list of groceries, gather the necessaries money, bags, coat, and not forgetting the list, and head for the shops. Thought ends with action. That is simple, and sometimes it may end with inaction because the purse is empty, or the car won't start. and then there is the further question of how to fill the purse, or how to fix the car.

The op ends with a question, but does that question need an answer? If it needs an answer, then the answer is "No, fasting is not required, but more thought, and here is some more thought that answers the question.

If the answer were yes, there would be no replies. If the answer is yes, then our replies are foolish refusal. Is there more to said?. There's always more can be said, and probably someone will say some of it, because that is what the site is made of, but personally, do you need to think some more, or does your thought reach an end wherein is satisfied to leave this question, or another one, unanswered?

You need to read 'Soul on Ice' by Eldridge Cleaver, because there is an intersection between gender and race. The image of a man is not the image of a black man; the image of a woman is not the image of a black woman.

If one were to measure height, weight, speed, intelligence, more or less anything non-reproductive, one would find a large overlap between the sexes, that is completely ignored in favour of the competitive extremes. Culture exaggerates sexual differences where they statistically occur, and invents them everywhere else. One has to learn to conform, and one spends one's life attempting with diets, makeup, surgery, workouts, and therapy, trying to conform to other people's fantasy of otherness. It is worse in the US than most places, where women have to speak like chipmunks and look like barbie, and men have to buy one.

Again, completely untrue. — boethius

Indeed. but you are not asking about what the truth is, but what the plan is. The plan is to win - the truth is everyone loses.

If there's no answer to step 3, then it seems to me at least Ukrainian welfare is not a consideration in this plan — boethius

That seems unarguable. But it is in general the case that wars are prosecuted on the basis that:

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. — Churchill

War is always 'to the death'. There is no other plan. The welfare plan involves health and safety officers and hospitals, not tanks and bombs.

I immediately thought of this:

This song was originally written by Leon Rosselson in response to the Aberfan Disaster of 1966 in which a coalmine’s spoilheap collapsed on to a school in Aberfan, Wales, killing 116 children and 28 adults. The National Coal Board was found to have behaved negligently.

https://genius.com/Martin-carthy-palaces-of-gold-lyrics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwkg2QUo9AU

That was 1966. And this is 55 years later:

The data, based on exhaustive surveys, showed the regional spread of legacy coal tips and graded them according to the risk they present to the public from landslides, with nearly 300 of 2,456 categorised as being at “high risk”.

https://www.ft.com/content/94a08a9e-8579-4586-8940-ccd86df28ea7

All due respect etc, but I don't feel another new philosophical, moral or economic theory is required, so much as the implementation of the very basics of common decency.

The good news, though, is that wiping out most of the human population not only makes sound economic sense now that we have robotics and bespoke 3D printing and computer-controlled precision machining, but it is also the solution to almost all the environmental problems. Hurrah!

The myth: technological progress improves productivity so that everyone can have more goods and services for less time spent working.

The reality: it is no longer possible for a family to survive on a single wage, and it is becoming impossible to survive on a dual wage. Reliance on food banks and homelessness are increasing, work hours are increasing and conditions worsening.

Once one realises that promised progress is reversed, one naturally wants to reverse the reversal and return to the good old days.

The luddite was the product of exploitation, and the neo-luddite is no different. It is the culture of ruthless exploitation that is dangerous.

Speaking of tags, I'm not tagging any of you because I want you all to ignore my posts, even though I am talking about you. This is called 'dehumanising' and it makes the slaughter much easier to stomach.

There's an old tradition of thinking of society as 'the Great Man'. It's out of fashion, but it has some merit.

1) Perception : Visualising
2) Thought : Articulating
3) Realisation : Acting Out
4) Reversal : Analysing
5) Development : Inventing — I like sushi

One might extend your items from the individual to society, or at least look for analogical processes.
As I started to hint earlier, there is at least an aspect of ritual that is to do with communication. If society is the Great Man, ritual is his nervous system.

At the moment I am being bombarded with ritual to do with the death of the queen and accession of the new king. Every cell in the Great Man's body has to be informed and make an adjustment, rather like an individual adjusting to a new home or job. Even the national anthem has changed!

I go back to my earlier idea of ritual as obsession. It catches the pejorative sense of the word rather well: "We have traditions, you have customs, they have rituals." The Great Man has healthy habits, we hope, that lead to a well functioning society, -tradition is maintained when it has a function, and dropped when it no longer has one. Or, in an unhealthy society, traditions are maintained when they do not serve any useful function, like an obsessive, they no longer contribute to an ordered society, but to disorder, and we are talking now about 'empty ritual' that has no meaning, that it might have once had, equivalent to the obsessive thoughts that prevent an individual from thinking straight.