This is a case where you (the parent) can not create ANY harm for another person.. — schopenhauer1

Who?

Why do you, the parent, have to be the harbinger for other people's experiences? You are almost making the point I am trying to make to DA671 — schopenhauer1

That's just how it works, old man; the egg is necessary to the chicken, and the chicken is necessary to the egg. Hence the unanswerable question. It is not necessary to me to have children but it is necessary to my children that I had them; and their suffering is necessary to their lives as your suffering is necessary to yours.

You see, when you talk about what an individual has to do - what they find necessary, then you begin to talk sense; you don't have to have children; if you do have children they will suffer. These are bald facts; but there is no life without suffering, so there is no unnecessary suffering {apart from all the unnecessary suffering that we ought to avoid, by not putting ground glass in the bread and not shooting folks in the knee-cap etc.}

Being the harbinger of joy can be inestimably valuable — DA671

I reject the calculus of joy - suffering = value of life. A life of suffering is valuable. Fall in love, and be heartbroken; go climbing and break a leg and die of exposure; have children and agonise over their every grazed knee. Live much and suffer and die, and if there is joy sometimes, that is a bonus.

Give me a break — schopenhauer1

No. I refuse you a break.

if someone is going to be born into horrendous conditions, because the kid is not "existent" yet, none of this matters? — schopenhauer1

There is no 'if' about it. Every child suffers, and every child dies. This is an inescapable part of what being alive is. Harm is necessary to life, not unnecessary to life.

In your attempt to be clever with the non-identity argument you put yourself in a corner. — schopenhauer1

I have not made a non-identity argument. My argument is that life is good because without life there would be no antinatalism.

I am responsible for my posts; and I am also responsible for all the posts I think better of and do not post. This means i am responsible for your replies too, in the same way that I am responsible for my children breaking your window, or becoming fanatics and starting a war. There is no end to my responsibility; I am responsible for every starving child and every idiot politician. I should be more careful.

I am my brother's keeper.

Unnecessary to whom?
— unenlightened

Unnecessary to create it in the first place. — schopenhauer1

A non response. Unnecessary to create it in the first place to whom? Life is necessary as the precondition for saying "the first place". Therefore life is the first place. Life is necessary to life. Life is necessary to claiming that life is not necessary.

Life is contingent. Harm is necessary to life. Life is necessary to say that life is contingent.

Is creating unnecessary collateral damage for someone else ever ethical? — schopenhauer1

Unnecessary to whom? Death is necessary to life. Harm is necessary to life. Life is necessary to life.

Well, I think it is generally accepted that when we are overwhelmed by strong emotions, physical pain, etc., our capacity for rational thought can become impaired. In order to restore our reasoning faculty to its optimal or normal functional state, we need to release it from the grip of the factors that have caused the impairment. And this involves a degree of detachment or disengagement. — Apollodorus

I agree. That, as I said is the natural, and automatic response to trauma. The difficulty comes when the dissociated person finds that life without affect is flat and meaningless, but finds that the first feeling they come across is the same unprocessed feeling of horror or terror or agony with which they could not deal, that remains unexpressed because it has been dissociated from. That is to say, that the reasoning faculty has been maintained in a normal functional state at the cost of shutting off the feeling self. Acute anxiety has been exchanged for chronic depression.

But is the passive observation of the mind a valid concept? Doesn't the very act of paying attention to a thought create it? And how can one even choose to observe passively, given the fact that the very intention to be mindful is agenda-driven? — sime

One should certainly be mindful of these questions! :wink:

I would like to talk this evening about the quality of the meditative mind. It may be rather complex and abstract, but if one goes into it thoroughly - not so much in detail but to discover the nature of it, the feeling of it, the essence of it - , then perhaps it will be worthwhile; then perhaps without conscious effort and deliberate purpose, we shall be able to break through the shallow mind which makes our lives so empty, so superficial and so habit-ridden.
[...]
The effort to be, to become, to deny, to resist, to cultivate virtue, to suppress, to sublimate - all that is in essence the nature of a shallow mind. Probably most people will not agree with this, but it does not matter. It seems to me an obvious psychological fact.

Now, when one realizes this, when one is aware of it, sees the truth of it actually, not verbally, not intellectually, and does not allow the mind to ask innumerable questions as to how to change it, how to get out of this shallowness - all of which implies effort - , then the mind realizes that it cannot do anything about itself. All that it can do is to perceive, to see things ruthlessly, as they are, without distortion, without bringing in opinions about the fact; merely to observe. And it is extremely difficult, merely to observe, because our minds are trained to condemn, to compare, to compete, to justify, or to identify with what is seen. So it never sees things exactly as they are. To live with a feeling as it is - whether it is jealousy, envy, greed, ambition, or what you will - , to live with it without distorting it, without having any opinion or judgment about it, requires a mind that has energy to follow all the movements of that fact. A fact is never still; it is moving, it is living. But we want to make it still by capturing it with an opinion, a judgment. — J.Krishnamurti

Public Talk 10 London, England - 23 May 1961

Obviously, in psychological terms, observing mental processes in a detached or "impersonal" manner automatically leads to a state of enhanced emotional calm and mental clarity, as it represents the opposite of personal identification with those processes leading to one's conscious self being overwhelmed by emotions and thoughts causing stress. — Apollodorus

Obvious, it may be, but true, I think not. This dissociation of consciousness from feeling and mind from body is the natural response to trauma. So while it may 'work' in the sense of allowing thought to be calm, it increases the fragmentation of the self, and leaves the emotional self neglected.

There is an assumption that thought makes that thought is aware and emotion is not; that thought is important and emotion foolish and unnecessary. This is traumatised ideation. Now if mindfulness is to be therapeutic, it needs not to increase the fragmentation of the mind, but to unify it. This requires observation without detachment or separation. Observation of the whole by the whole. And that means the fragmented self seeing its fragmented state, it means reentering and reclaiming those trauma emotions from which one has dissociated.

But this is a very different approach from the mindfulness that is commonly taught and promoted as an alternative to the mind-numbing drugs that are even more commonly prescribed. It is not cheap, easy or safe.

I am not at all opposed to opposites; that would be a performative contradiction. Which would be a very suitable name: perco for short.

Have a look at conflict theory.
Polarisation can be defined as the alignment of conflicting interest groups. The archetypal case is N. Ireland during the 'Troubles'. There was a conflict between Catholics and Protestants. But Catholics were Republicans and Protestants were Loyalists, and Catholics were working-class, and Protestants were middle-class, and Catholics were SDLP and Protestants were DUP.

It is the alignment of these divisions or conflicts that tends to lead to actual physical conflict rather than compromise, whereas when they are not aligned, the individual contains the conflict, being allied with one group on one issue, religion, say, and another group on another issue, politics, say. If your relatives are opposed on some issues, your religious leader is opposed on some issues, your children on some issues, then you are less likely to take an extreme, intolerant, or violent stance. Thus the bubble forming nature of social media can be seen to be a factor tending towards polarisation.

Someone familiar with American society can probably better analyse the alignments there, but they are likely to be broadly the same dimensions of left/right, rich/poor, social/ individual, and perhaps not Protestant /Catholic, but Godly/Godless. Should I add White/non-white? Line them all up, and civil war is the likely outcome.

Are you now or have you ever been ... woke?

McCarthy was probably not the originator, but surely the epitome of cancel culture.

To a degree that they're somewhat disabled? It doesn't seem to say. — praxis

It doesn't say, and I'm not sure that 'somewhat disabled' is quantifiable. But my feeling is that 'most' folks who manage to achieve a mental diagnosis of any sort are probably somewhat disabled. It's not an attractive handy label that folks will go look for very much. In fact it would be crazy to do so.

“For most people, I think if you’re not suffering from any clinical issues, or illness, or from stress to a degree that you’re somewhat disabled, it’s fine,” he says.

1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem of some kind each year in England .
1 in 6 people report experiencing a common mental health problem (like anxiety and depression) in any given week in England.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/statistics-and-facts-about-mental-health/how-common-are-mental-health-problems/

That "if", already qualified by "most", is itself quite large. The 'mostly harmless' epithet may literally be true, but that does not equate to 'safe'.

You should try mindfulness, Jack; it's great for peace of mind.

Metaphysics you are saying deals more in absolutes? — TiredThinker

Here is a necessary truth, a founding exemplar for something like a TRUE opposite.

'Up' is the opposite of 'down.' No one can argue with that!

Except that the world is round, and when an Australian points down, his pointing aligns with my English up.

So a necessarily true opposite is not necessarily opposite at all. Opposite is a useful term in many ordinary situations, but it is not a useful erm for philosophy.

For the god-Squad, speak instead of The practicing of the Presence.

The Christian monastic and mystical tradition is very close to Buddhist practice behind the veil of cultural embellishments. But these embellishments are essential to those that are themselves embedded in a particular culture.

And that I think is the source some dangers, that folks make use of what is potentially a powerful technique for clearing the mind, without having any real cultural ground, and this leaves one prey to all sorts of fancies and terrors with no defence. Thus schools use mindfulness as a pacifier and social control, resulting in self-hypnosis rather than any awakening. Stress is the appropriate response to most schools, and mindfulness is used to repress the stress, not to liberate.

David Shapiro, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, found that 63% of the group studied, who had varying degrees of experience in meditation and had each tried mindfulness, had suffered at least one negative effect from meditation retreats, while 7% reported profoundly adverse effects including panic, depression, pain and anxiety. Shapiro’s study was small-scale; several research papers, including a 2011 study by Duke University in North Carolina, have raised concerns at the lack of quality research on the impact of mindfulness, specifically the lack of controlled studies.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/23/is-mindfulness-making-us-ill

I'll just leave this here lest we become overly happy and clappy.

In general, a word has meaning by virtue of distinguishing that which it is from that which it is not.This is a cat, that is not a cat. But there is no opposite of a cat as anti-cat. This is flying, that is not flying, but falling with attitude. Sometimes it is worth talking loosely of opposition and opposites in various ways, but let's not try and make a metaphysics of it, because it will be the opposite of good philosophy, which as every schoolboy knows is bullshit.

The dude was my head of department in his dotage when he thought he had proved the existence of god after all.

I think the conception of religion as belief is mistaken in the first place. You continue that conception by positing faith as belief without evidence, or some such. I might say that I believe in justice, and not imagine that there is a fact that justice invariably prevails, or even usually prevails, corresponding to my belief. It is a principle to live by, a practice to seek to follow, not a fact or fantasy to believe.

One can decide to put one's faith in something, which is to hang one's life on it, as if it is a rope. One has to live for something or die for it, there has to be some centre to one's life, and that is where one has put one's faith. Flew put his faith in his own powers of argumentation, and they proved somewhat treacherous in the end.

I remember the bad old days when there were "no spitting" notices on public transport and other public spaces. What an outrageous curtailment of freedom that was in the name of public health! Almost as bad as the obligation to list the ingredients on food packaging, that still prevents us from selling ground glass enriched bread and so on. Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!

That is a mighty big pile of words, and I have read some of them. I am never inclined to think that piles of words can oblige things to be thus and not so, and what I understand is that an experience is being described.

The trauma of total consciousness fragments.

I recognise it.

But probably you prefer the details of theory...

I have now listened up to #37 which completes a series on Plato.

Now back when I was at ninnyversity (early 70's), Plato was presented as the founder of the philosophical method as it is here celebrated. Dialogue, argumentation, logic, and a healthy scepticism for ancient authority and tradition, religion, and anything remotely 'esoteric.

This view was clearly skewed and partial. But not only that, it was modern and novel at the time, and fashion has since moved on, or back, to a more complete and complex view.

The discussion of the divided line story in The Republic, for example, comes in the Republic just at the point in the text of the golden ratio. And the description of the divided line is such as to define the golden ratio. But the ratio is not mentioned.

And then there is Atlantis, a myth originating with Plato as far as is known, that surely ought to make more sense than it does. And, and, and ...

So at the least, there is much weirdness and many things alluded to but not spelled out, but left to the reader to work out.

I am staying esoteric in these comments as instructed, and just leaving a breadcrumb trail of my progress, but feel free to make comments out of sync with me.

if America wins, — Apollodorus

If America wins what? You think Russia and America are going to war?

Because history, and/or geography, 'we', the righteous, will not be defending Ukraine. So Putin's calculation will be the cost/benefit analysis of invasion and occupation. War with Europe and the US is not a risk, but sanctions are, and the possibility of a protracted destabilising resistance also. As against the prospect of an uncontested win against the West, consolidation of gains in Crimea, Kudos from the folks, respect from China, and the prospect of Europe getting gas hungry. What else? Or the laugh of the ungodly getting their knickers in a twist over some military manoeuvres.

Are you chaps aware of the concept of tokenism? It's the grownup version of Uncle Tom. So, for example, you promote a vertically challenged lesbian female to be head of the Metropolitan Police, on the understanding that she will both exemplify the non existence of, and vigorously deny the existence of, misogyny and homophobia, (and racism, for good luck) in the police. I imagine the Supreme Court works the same way.

"Is anything ruled out?"

Ruled out by what?

In chess, it is ruled out by the rules of the game that a bishop can move from a black square to a white square or vice-versa.

In language, it is ruled out that up can be down.

But if reality decides that the world is round and folks on opposite sides of it point up in opposite directions, language had better learn to accommodate this inconvenient fact.

In general, the rules of science are descriptive not prescriptive. This means that they do not rule anything out, but merely describe the fact that some things do not happen.

"Cows do not lay eggs." This is a generalised observation, not a rule. Here is another generalised observation: "Reality is not ruled by thoughts or words." Traditionally, it was supposed that God said stuff, and it was so. Sometimes when a tyrant says stuff, it is so, but even Canute proverbially could not rule the tides. To suppose that words can rule things in or out is magical thinking. Conform your thoughts to the way things are, and be ruled by that.

Having said that, there is much also to be said for that kind of magical thinking that is called 'design and planning'. An engineer designs a non-existent bridge, and builders realise his ideas. Many of mankind's magical imaginings have been realised in this way - I myself have a magic mirror that enables me to see and speak to my daughter on the other side of the world, and send messages to philosophers that I have never even met. My daughter put on wings and flew seven times seven leagues; and so on.

The redshift of the distant universe (most of the other galaxies) is due to the expansion of space over time. The more distant the source, the older the light, and the more stretched it has become as space expands. Radiation that has stretched so far as to become radio frequency, dates back to the early universe, before the formation of stars and galaxies, I think.

https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html

In relation to redshift due to expansion of space, the shifts observed due to actual relative motion are rather small.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/?sh=6f8ba9ed72a2

To die without gaining one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. — Dermot Griffin

On the one hand, dogs are noble, brave and loyal, but on the other, fanaticism is rather disparaged these days. This is because science has multiplied the power of the human to previously unimaginable heights. Thus the fanatic, blowing himself up on a plane, or some such, has become very much a rabid dog, dangerous and out of control, and in need of immediate shooting. The days when a warrior needed long and arduous training and discipline to be much danger to others are long gone - any idiot in a car can be a suicidal serial killer, and there is nothing admirable about it.

The classical Greeks used to slaughter each other over just such heresies. But these days Ph.D's do not blink at irrational, transcendental, imaginary, and just fucking ridiculous numbers.

Pi is irrational in the sense that it cannot be expressed as a ratio between two whole numbers, (known to the thought police under the alias of a vulgar fraction). But the square root of 2 is also irrational, and to the extent that 2 is an exact number, the number that, multiplied by itself, comes to 2 must also be exact. Therefore the accusation of congenital vagueness against irrational numbers fails, and the thought police are liable to investigate you on suspicion of irrationalist prejudice.

It's just how we are. — frank

Let's change!

Thanks for that, useful info.

Perhaps there are reasons also for that. — ssu

Reasons for being unreasonable:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/15/five-zombie-economic-ideas-that-refuse-to-die/

There are people profiteering from crisis, and from increasing disasters, and unfortunately they are dominating the world. Here in the UK, the government trumpets economic growth while presiding on a huge decline in living standards.

A wife asking if she looks fat is testing you — Cobra

It may be so. Then it is a dishonest question. She is asking for sartorial advice, but really she is asking if you love her. One should answer both questions honestly; there is no point in pretending an affection verbally that is not going to be enacted, and there is no point encouraging a size 18 to squeeze into a size 14. A relationship founded on flattery is a fantasy relationship, a real relationship is made of affection, truth and trust.

we should assess when and how to tell the truth, instead of telling it indiscriminately. Is what determines the point of truth a matter of utility? — Cobra

If you are asking, "Does my brain look big in this post?", I have to tell you it does not. Telling people what they want to hear when it is not true is fostering delusion, and thus insanity. And in the longer term, it undermines communication and community and the language itself, and the loss of trust produces paranoia.

This does not mean that one should be looking to inflict the cruel truth on folks who have not asked for it, but when your wife asks whether her bum looks big in this, though she wants to hear that it does not, she wants more to hear the truth, rather than have folks sniggering behind her back, because you flattered her with a lie.

I became 'content' with the conception that I am not able to see the whole of 'me, myself and I' at any instant in time. — universeness

So you are content with I {the seer} see myself {the seeable}, and theorise me {the unseeable} -- or thereabouts? Fair enough, if you are content. I simply say to anyone who is not content, that there is another way, that does not begin with thought and theory, and also does not struggle, but is willing to see whatever is there and accept it. Seeing can see itself whole, and it is instantaneous. I hope you all will come to it.

Ah, I see, now. It was my comment about brain-speak that is a problem for you. My apologies. If I might explain just a little, what I have been concerned with is what you put in the title "look to yourself" which I have been calling 'insight.' Now when I do that, I do not find a brain. And I think when other people do it they do not find a brain either. A brain cannot experience itself. So when someone speaks of 'my brain' doing this or having this structure or thinking such and such, they are not looking to themselves at all, but theorising according to what they have been taught.

Now the reason I think this is important is that a theory is a way of looking, and while that is no problem when one is looking outwardly, when one looks inwardly, the theory that one has is part of the thing one is trying to look at; it is part of oneself. and this means that the theory through which one looks cannot account for itself and one can only have a partial incomplete view of oneself.

This is the source of the triune aspect of the mind; not the structure of the brain, but the structure of outward looking turned inwards; the observer, the observed and the theory. The winner the loser and the referee, the id the ego and the superego, etc, etc. Here is the challenge: if I have a true insight, then I see the whole - all three. But if all three are seen, who is seeing?

Racism is like theism in this respect, that the reality of the 'ism is independent of its truth. What counts as a race, and what counts as a god are not questions that can be answered in any neutral or objective way.

Still, if one were to speak of visible or measurable difference and, say, 'colour prejudice' and perhaps 'ethnic prejudice', one might be able to consider differences between the African, Asian, Arabic, Irish, and Jewish experiences of discrimination. But I don't think we need a league table of collective suffering, do we?

You get It! totally! — universeness

I wonder how we have travelled from agreement to conflict?

I might disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it, as long as you are not inciting violence. — universeness

I'm somewhat underwhelmed by your generous respect for my right to be wrong. "Don't keep fighting the good fight!" he says, inciting the end to violence.