Didn't you advise against responding in the OP? The pictures are just decorations for your thread. Get a sense of aesthetics. — frank

I prefer to do my own decorating.

If anyone actually plans on engaging in an actual conversation about this, I feel like this article could, perhaps, be somehow relevant. — thewonder

There's a lot of scope for interesting diversions there. But I'm going to rule out politics as doomed to failure to the extent that it attempts to solve moral problems with social structures. In the distinction I am trying to look at, politics belongs to route 66 - reward and punishment. If you want to reduce drunk driving there are two ways to go, you can introduce laws and breathalyzers, or you can stop drink-driving. It's not that politics is unimportant, but it is all amelioration of psychological/moral problems.

It's interesting that Abraham changed God's mind that day, but only when it was about authority. — Shawn

I reckon it's not the most interesting part, personally. It happens when you have actually got your knife out and bared the neck of your most prized possession. We haven't even made it to the right highway, yet.

What it shows me is that reality beats principles. — god must be atheist

Then you need some specs. Reality is totally subservient to principled imagination. New York is built on a grid system because someone decided it would be a good idea, and for no other reason.

This isn't fucking facebook! Say something, don't just post memes!

Brotherly love: — Shawn

Pigs are jolly fellows, and i won't have a word said against them. Au contraire. I'll have a song sung in their praise.

the bible story that, even more than Job, popularises atheism. — unenlightened

Yes. So what do you need old chap? That's where we start, isn't it? A bloodthirsty vengeful deity that has to be propitiated. And the Christian twist is that God sacrifices himself for us. So you are unsatisfied by God's sacrifice, and also by your own? I guess you better get back to route 66.

How about this, — schopenhauer1

Your wisdom is necessarily the fruit of other's folly.

Humans are different, not all of our tissues can regenerate to that degree. We cannot sacrifice our own flesh & blood, it goes against our nature. — TaySan

Human digits are formed in the womb by the selective death of embryonic cells in the limb ends. Incomplete cell death results in webbed hands/feet.

But the state of nature is what we have fallen from, as the story goes,

In Aztec society it was an honour to be sacrificed. — The Opposite

Well aren't we multicultural! Let me speculate on the rationale since your contribution is a tad telegraphic. We of the Christian tradition might have considered crucifixion an honour, even to the extent that the mythos has it that St Paul, (or was it St Peter?) preferred to be crucified upside down so as not to o.d. on the honour. which is to say that the highway 61 of ancient times continued right down to S America.

Certainly, a scientist may not play ball, and not get published - and that is good for him! But then the rest of us are still getting the stuff that is published. So while we might esteem him for his resistance, it's not changing the system that determines what sort of stuff gets published - and the OP was about that problem — csalisbury

I largely agree with you so I will ignore everything but this , which is palpable nonsense. To put it simply, one participates in corruption or one refuses to participate. Refusing to participate reduces corruption and participating not only increases it but further normalises it. I cannot change anything by posting on this forum, and it costs me nothing to fulminate, so it is unlikely to convince anyone. but at the very small risk of sounding like a rabid religious conservative, this is how the moral world works: you have freedom and responsibility over what you do, even when it is difficult, but you are not responsible for what others choose. 'In the world, but no of it'.

Scientists have to tell the truth. There is no compromise available; there is no science without honesty.

I thought it was a great piece of work -- the academic social scientists exploded in outrage. — Bitter Crank

He was crucified, as might be expected. And here's another principled fool:

why I was not allowed to study philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. I objected to the forceful, totalitarian, and basically unnatural feminization of the School of Philosophy. — god must be atheist

Sacrificing anything of value for nothing, however, is recommended not to comfort lovers, but to suicidal people, the insane, and the extremely stupid. — god must be atheist

Sounds like someone acting according to principles whilst decrying such behaviour. But of course it is no real sacrifice to give up a corrupt education, and it is no real sacrifice not to publish corrupt science.

Edit: I'll butt out now, and retreat to ethics to continue to pontificate.

Sacrificing anything of value for nothing, — god must be atheist

And there we arrive at the inescapable conclusion - that principles are nothing, that values have no value. Now that's what I call a slippery slope!

You sacrifice yourself for a cause for action that nobody will notice. — god must be atheist

Indeed, no good deed ever goes unpunished, usually by crucifixion. Principles are an expensive luxury, and not recommended for comfort lovers.

I think it's better not to go down this kind of path. — csalisbury

Your privilege. I won't drag you.

I'd invite you to think about the implications of the relationship between character and manipulation you describe when applied generally. It's a slippery slope. — csalisbury

Ha! That is rich! A moral hard line is a slippery slope! You'll have to spell out those implications if you want me to think about them.

I think that's a narrow idea of what Christianity is — csalisbury

1 Corinthians 13:2

In the matter of what Christianity is, if in no other case, The New Testament is definitive.

sainthood would be a high bar to clear in order to do labwork. — csalisbury

Yeah, that's the Christian tradition, though. The religion of love brooks no compromise. If you blather on about the sanctity of knowledge, you have to uphold your own values. Bish bash bosh. If you have no love you are no Christian, and if the truth doesn't come first, you are no scientist.

Social bias is not a one way thing either, if say a white man was racist due to social bias towards a black man and that black man raised a child then that child grew up to accept social bias and that white people are racist then he would have the social bias that white people are racist without fact.
Which leads to denial on boths white and black ethinic's while being blind to the bias that causes it. — Tiberiusmoon

There is something odd about this. Suppose an alien looks at, say, the US; they see a single society. Then the bias of the white and the black are the same social bias. It is not a 2 way thing at all but the way that society as a whole is structured; that received opinion is that whites are racist automatically implies that non-whites are not, and to think one is to think the other. But the way you tell it, there are two societies in the US, that are biased against each other.

The separation is the bias.

I don't want to impugn the character of the researchers, [snip] but the incentive structures push people to keep doing this stuff. — csalisbury

If you can be ordered about by incentive structures, you have no character. Character is that which resists manipulation.

Take marriage. Either you are married, or you are not. You don't get to choose from moment to moment, and in this sense it is not subjective. You go through a ceremony involving other people and you become married, or you cease to be married. Stuff objectively happens, and that makes you married, and if it doesn't happen right, the wrong person officiates or one party is disqualified by already being married or too young or whatever, then marriage didn't happen.

Or did it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_broom

Language is intersubjective too. Words don't mean whatever I want them to mean, but they don't have a meaning apart from what speakers and listeners understand them to mean either.

Money and property likewise.

I think that public school teachers should not be free to teach whatever they want (I'm thinking mostly intelligent design), but yes, teachers should be allowed to teach some basic things about communication, open-mindedness, and cultural awareness imo. That seems reasonable. And yeah, hardly anyone is going to fight for that on the grounds of free speech. Also I realize now that my OP is a little cringeworthy - CRS doesn't really conflict with liberalism or free speech all that much. — ToothyMaw

Indeed. One man's freedom of speech is another man's indoctrination of radicalism and fundamentalism. Always good to look at who espouses which virtues on what occasion, and particularly at whose expense. But you don't really need to try very hard to teach that the playing field isn't level, it's just that when you have the slope advantage, you like to feel its your talent rather than the slope. Boo, therefore, to CRT and talk of privilege.

I'm liberal to a degree... — Bob Dylan

Recently, the State of Idaho prohibited the teaching of CRT (and Socialism and Marxism for good measure) in its public schools, thereby continuing the American tradition of regulating what is taught and learned by our youth. — Ciceronianus the White

How come no one has been fulminating about free speech an' all and the whatever amendment that guarantees it, or is it the well armed militia that does that, I get so confused?

I'm all for globalism as long as it's the rest of the world becoming more like me, not the other way round.

I know about stopping my crack habit.
I want to stop my crack habit.
I can stop my crack habit.

My crack habit ends. ?????

might be something in between — jorndoe

There is no argument as it stands; one can want things that conflict, ad one can be physically able to do things that one cannot bring oneself to do when the time comes.

I want to die.
I can jump off this high building and I will die.
But I cannot bring myself to do it.

Even philosophers are surely aware of such internal divisions and conflicts - we are not always single minded. Your logic only applies to a single mind, such as God.

A referendum on independence is a curious beast. It seems to necessarily assume that the people who are entitled to vote are those who would be entitled if independence had already occurred. It mirrors a unification, in the sense that both parties must have a say if {for a random example}, the UK wanted to join the EU. Just as both parties must agree to a marriage, but either one can file for divorce.

But here's the difficulty: If independence for Scotland, why not independence for the Hebrides or for Pimlico, or any teenager's bedroom? In the case of marriage, the parties to be joined or separated are fairly well defined; not so for countries. Wars must be fought to establish borders before the scope of referendums can be established. And imagine the boot being on the other foot - England wanting independence from all those Celtic regions and granting Wales, NI, and Scotland their independence whether they like it or not!

Just to be even clearer, it doesn't matter what is believed but what is true. If the fallacy were true, the odds would change and become predictable, and the casino would lose.

If the gambler's fallacy were not fallacious, casinos would all close.

My own bias is such that I would argue that the observation of the neighbor conveys more information than the thermometer. — tim wood

I can justify your bias! A thermometer takes no account of wind chill. We are not interested in the scientific measure of absolute temperature, but the subjective one of whether it feels cold, and therefore the neighbour as a subject, is the superior evidence.

Well yes to all of that, or most of it anyways - I might have a thought about the Process to express one day.

But actually, I don't think that is what non-violent communication is about. It's not a theory that only special non-violent people can understand, it's something grumpy, traumatised, people can learn to do sometimes, something your everyday relationship counsellor might try and do with their clients, or peace brokers could model and teach in their negotiations, or my wife and I might use to defuse our conflicts. It's a very humdrum revolution for part-time peacemakers, not enlightenment for the unenlightened..

I think trauma blurs the distinction between the past and the future. The past has a frustrated need in it, the future is lived as a tactic to compensate. Perhaps that's where we're talking past each other. — fdrake

I agree/don't understand.

You say the distinction is blurred and then characterise it fairly precisely. The traumatised person finds the past intruding into the present. This is not what the traumatised person says though, it is the view from outside, where the distinction between past and present is perfectly clear, and we can talk about "post-traumatic stress". Which is exactly the reappearance of the stress of the past in the present as "inappropriate reactions"

But then that's not the trauma we're talking about is it?
— unenlightened

I don't think the boundary is that clear. — fdrake

In the end, I don't think it's that important.

If I need to beat you because I can't bear my own shame... — fdrake

I didn't know you cared! Of course you can beat me if it is important to you. But wait; is it important to you that you beat me against my will? In that case, of course I will resist you.

Ok. When we are in this sado-masochistic relationship, it cannot be a non-violent one, and more people are in such a confused state than can admit it even to themselves. This is the situation of our society as a whole, that we take joy in punishment and retribution. It might even be hard wired - it has been suggested.

But did you misunderstand me? All I meant was that when we talk about the effects of trauma, we are talking about past trauma, not present trauma.

Alas, there is nothing in the world that reason does not think itself qualified to pontificate about. Your nobility and peasantry are the drivers of the social norms that lead you to want or not want children.

I hear God likes virgins. Or is that just another male fantasy?


But you are a beautiful, thoughtful person anyway, whether you have children or not. Better than the nobility.

Robots are not programmed to join the Union. Therefore, Labour has lost its power base. As we see, money is quite happy 'to see the bodies pile high'. And it's good for the environment too.

Having replaced the idealist Corbyn with the blandest thing on the menu, there's nowhere left to go, only variations on right. I think there's a long way down to go yet before anything like socialism has any hope of finding a way through the populist bull and Mossad disinformation.

We know of all these people that they were difficult in their own lives - their own relationships fell ever apart - but razor-sharp and charming while appraising the situations of others. Why is that? — csalisbury

Since you are generalising the personal here, I'll respond personally {arrogantly putting myself on a par with these heroes}. In my dotage, I have become more sensitive both to myself and to others. To the extent that I cannot abide for very long a superficial relationship any more, which is almost every relationship. Even at the great distance of the internet, too many people even on this site are not serious, but concerned with winning an argument or looking clever. I can't be bothered; life's too short.


Being an admin back in the day taught me to accept the need to be unpleasant to people at times - bans and deletes etc. And to be tolerant of the flames that tend to result. At first I was shocked and upset at being called a fascist or worse, but the support of the staff helped me get used to it.

And that's it really I think. Where does a therapist go for therapy? There is no individual entirely immune to the environment, and the more one deals in the day job with other people's shit, the more one needs a shit-free relationship at home. And a good man these days sure is hard to find.

What would this taxonomy make of trauma? A frustrated, festering past need which no tactic could address in context, leading to a frustrated present need - a shadow of one. The past need is still implicated as an anchor in the psyche. "I need them to stop (tormenting me)". I imagine that some of this turns on the distinction between a need and a tactic? — fdrake

This is an interesting question. I'll try a naive answer and see how it goes. Someone who has been abused as a child, say, probably has 'trust issues'. So the festering need is for security in a nurturing relationship. The need for security results in the tactic of relationship testing (eg will you still love me if ...). Testing relationships distorts and sometimes breaks them. Hence the festering.

So the taxonomy would be that a need for the past to be different is not a need as it is unfulfillable. But the trauma brings a present need, for quiet, for security, for comforting, or some such. Of course if if someone is actually being tormented in the present then that needs to stop. But then that's not the trauma we're talking about is it?

I can need you to be subservient to me. — fdrake

Well the theory, if I understand aright, is that you might need someone to to be subservient,{I'm not sure about that} but you cannot be so specifically dependent on my subservience. Choosing me is a tactic to fulfil the more general need.

- I might need flexible working hours, but my contract might say otherwise. Needs become unmeetable given a context. — fdrake

So one needs to change the context. Change job. But certainly one can die of starvation. Needs don't always get met. Unmeetable needs never get met - by definition - and that I think indicates that they are not needs.

The example Marshall gives is Mcdonalds. One needs food; one does not need a Big Mac; that's a tactic, {though they want you to think it's a need}. And anger is a tactic I employ to keep me away from Big Macs.

Perhaps some will not have the scope, introspective ability, insight, emotional integration, integration of self concept with behaviour, to see the peace giraffe speak would conjure into being. In other words, one must be in a place where they can make the choice not to be another's jackal. — fdrake

Of course. If everyone had this understanding, the system of domination, of reward and punishment, would cease to be, there would be no wars, and we'd all be happy and friendly.

Me? I'm sure I'm a jackal, — fdrake

I'm sure you're not. Though it is rather a jackal relation you are making with yourself, to declare what you are, rather than what you need. That's what we are taught to do and it's a 5,000 yr habit, so it isn't easy to stop. But give it a go, you might like it.

I need this to be false because my anger is redemptive.
I need this to be a partial truth because sometimes I must force people to meet my needs.
I need this to be wrong because no one could meet those needs.
I need this to be wrong because my needs are wrong. — fdrake

I had a little think, and tried to remember something you said ages ago about your own experience of violence, but I cannot make it add up to something, and I want to. Can you say more?

We are taught that retribution is redemptive?
Sometimes one has to intervene forcefully - perhaps the school shooter needs to be shot. Sometimes it is not the moment for communication of any sort. Afterwards, we can talk, maybe.
But how can needs be wrong? How can they be unmeetable?

I am free to determine whatever is within my power and ability. My post, my words, your reply, your choice.

Feeding that through google giraffe translate, I get something like "I need you to respect my intellect". — unenlightened

That's personalised so as to become a tactic, not just a need. It should be "I need my intellect respected."

Yeah no kidding it's hard!

But don't beat yourself up about it! There's 8,000 years of habit and social structure to overcome, and Rome wasn't carefully dismantled and repurposed in a day.

It's interesting how close this is to conventional psychology as we know and despise it.

*Condescending mechanistic blah about "fight or flight response".*

Oh, so there's always a choice?

I'm wondering if some insults anger you lead to you feeling angry more than others
— TLCD1996

Being called brainless or someone saying I have a fucked up mentality. — The Opposite

Feeding that through google giraffe translate, I get something like "I need you to respect my intellect".

Total paradigm shift for me. — TLCD1996

I'm sooo glad someone else 'gets it'. For me, it's like -of course, I already knew all this, but I couldn't quite bring it together so that it worked.

Let me help you get your ducks in a row.

Suppose 3 or so ducks as material objects - what you call physical. Now get them lined up in a row. The row is not more material over and above the ducks that were already there, but it is a row of perfectly physical ducks. The row is what I call 'an arrangement' of ducks. This is the usual way of looking at it, material and arrangements, stuff and structure, material and information.

When the cat is on the mat, the cat and the mat are physical objects and 'on' is their relation or arrangement. One cannot manage without arrangements because if one tries, one quickly discovers that 01 has to be the same as 10, and that's information up the spout.

Yeah I've upset a few rakes and stepped on some women in my time too.

How fragile we are!

Judgement is violence. Especially self judgement. We teach it and build society around it, but it is not necessary.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10719/non-violent-communication

Female masturbation is a wondrous, joyful, beautiful thing, and so are you.

his reasoning must be faulty — Manuel

It is. That the judge's words constrain reality is an unwarranted assumption. The judge could have said anything, true or false, sensical or not. Never believe a judge!