Quite merrily? — baker

Yes, I think not living according to your beliefs is often an easier way of going about one's business. But sometimes the fault line's between belief and practice do rub up against each other and cause tremors and quakes.

The final solution to the problem of suffering is widely known and readily available, it's just that people "do not embrace it and act on it"? — baker

Can you tell me what it is? I was away that day.

How schizoid can one handle to be? — baker

Simply pointing out that people quite merrily live by keeping two sets of books. Schizoid is the wrong word. Hypocritical or inconsistent may be closer.

What does that look like? Can you elaborate? — baker

It simply means that I regularly think about death and dying, maybe 2 or 3 times a month.

In order to succeed in the world, or at the very least, in order to get by in the world, one has to believe "there is a real world out there" and "there is only one true, accurate, correct way to perceive this world". — baker

Yes, we (even the most implacable idealist) have no choice but to behave as though the real world is real. If we want to live. What we believe however is separate, isn't it?

Really?? So then what -- do you get anxious? If you do, what do you tell yourself to calm down and compose yourself? — baker

I'm often mindful of my mortality. The only time I get anxious is when I am in a vehicle that is going too fast. Generally I ask the driver to slow down.

Life is risk
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that life is a gamble in any way. — baker

That is interesting. We have different views. Alert the media...

The point being? — baker

I told you. To me this (and many other examples) point to the innate lottery inherent in being alive (which you don't agree is a thing).

This is a philosophy forum. More precision is fully warranted. — baker

Not necessarily. We have conversations containing some philosophical ideas using basic English words and idioms with some specialized terms. We ask for clarifications when something is unclear - as you did.

Do you ever reflect on risk before crossing the road or eating seafood? I'm pretty sure you don't. — baker

I sure do and when I get in a car.

I'm obviously using luck in the conversational sense. But whatever you wish to call it. Life is risk and you may be dead by morning...

If the world is really incoherent and dangerous as you say, then there is no reason to believe that anything (whether vaccines or levers) can make any difference. Except maybe magic. — baker

I actually didn't spell out precisely how dangerous or incoherent, did I? Is this merely some grotesque exaggeration to avoid a point? I can't tell.

An example - a friend died of lung cancer at 40. She didn't smoke. My grandfather smoked 2 packets a day for 70 years and never got sick. He died in his sleep at 96. Human experience in a nutshell. This is why I use words like luck or incoherent. Feel free to suggest an improved nomenclature, but you can't avoid the point.

But from this example I do not conclude there is no merit in taking precautions in life because, all quirky anomalies aside, most people who smoke 2 packs a day die from it.

Part of the problem is insisting on looking at the matter from the perspective of large numbers, large populations, and then expecting that individual people will be convinced and soothed by this.

If you are the one who gets the stroke after the vaccine, it does not matter to you if so many millions didn't get one. It's still you who is now paralyzed. — baker

I wonder how useful this observation is. Isn't understanding and managing the odds how life is negotiated for the most part? All of life is a risk. Simple daily activities like crossing a road or eating seafood can kill you if you have bad luck. If you're the one with the bad luck, you can be understandably dismayed but isn't this the price of being a fragile corporeal creature in an incoherent and dangerous world?

Hmmm. I don't really understand where this is heading but in the words of the now obscure 20th century philosopher Lana Turner, "A gentleman is simply a patient wolf."

I like it when you talk dirty. :wink:

Do businesses care that some employees hate their job? Perhaps. Perhaps not because caring about your workers may cut into their profits, a big no-no. Society has allowed a bunch of systems to exist, called "businesses", who may not even care about the employees they hire. Many workers are treated like dirt. It all seems so cruel and unfair.

What do you think? — Wheatley

I think businesses are always looking to maximise profit and cut costs and will ususally do whatever the legal system, the government and conditions allow them to get away with. Happiness of staff only starts to matter when you go further up the hierarchy.

I think the cult of the artist as genius and visionary has almost always run alongside highbrow art too - whether you're talking Rembrandt, Wagner or Leonardo.

In art proper, one doesn't express oneself, one expresses a higher truth. — baker

I think the idea is that in a particular work we see personality interacting with the great and universal themes. I am not a great appreciator of the arts, so the issue is moot.

Ok. I think we may be coming from different perspectives. I agree that power doesn't have to be misused. It's clear that leaders need power to be affective. As do governments. They require a mandate so they can govern without impediments.

Remember too that Lord Acton went on to say that 'great men are almost always bad men' another angle to this. I am convinced that many people who chase and attain power are psychologically damaged and ruthless individuals. So you could also say that people corrupt power. Either way, it doesn't make any difference to the end result.

People are dishonest with themselves all the time. This dishonesty is for personal gain - in the form of avoidance. Long term, not short term, this is often detrimental. This is corruption as you’ve framed it and I’m saying this is due to a lack of power. — I like sushi

Can you provide an example so we can see this in action? I'm still unclear.

Absolute power doesn’t exist, and higher degrees of power don’t necessitate corruption. — I like sushi

Contestable claims here. Can you demonstrate that absolute power doesn't exist? I think the idea here is that there is 'maximal power' which surely does exist. I would say Stalin had this and so too do the Taliban right now. Power over who gets to live and die and what people can do and wear is as close to absolute power as humans can get. Perhaps North Korean leadership has more power than this - they even control people's thoughts.

Why are you interested in this subject - what thesis are you testing out? Is there more you can add?

Nietzsche doesn't resonate with me greatly but I enjoy some of his aphorisms. It's all just a little grandiose and camp for me. I was never really clear if N intended der Wille zur Macht as an almost foundational principle behind all of nature, or as a psychological insight about human behavior. Schopenhauer is more interesting and I have read some essays (the prose is nicer) but I am not a philosopher so I don't read much philosophy.

Not for a while.

I think it is more simple and straightforward to acknowledge that we are part of nature. — Manuel

Just checking - is your position that everything that is the case is natural?

I'm looking into antirealism, to see if it is a viable alternative to realism. — Banno

Excellent. I've wondered about this. Verisimilitude not being realist is fascinating. I guess there's also the phenomenologist's perspective (of which I have limited understanding) wherein we co-create reality and share an intersubjective experience rather than an objective reality. But maybe I've got this wrong. Let us know what you find.

Apologies if I got it wrong. I thought I was agreeing and extending the point.

You are speaking rather loosely here. Exaggerating. — Daemon

Not by much.

It was an aside, Frank - the idea being that it is not only computers that can assemble syntax without connecting to the content. You don't have to agree.

So you use verisimilitude as your measure of truth. — Banno

I'm not a Popperian but I plead guilty to elevating verisimilitude. As far as I can tell, I have no alternative but to assume the world I am in is real that other people exist and act accordingly. All matter may well really be discrete globs of energy bobbing about on quantum waves but it makes no sense to conduct life using this model of reality. Is there help?

Yes, human translators sometimes don’t understand what they are translating. Everyone has been baffled by poorly translated product instructions I guess. And sometimes this is because the human translator does not have experience assembling or using the product, or products like it. — Daemon

Yes, as long as you obey certain rule understanding the meaning can be secondary

Nobody masters a language with no idea what they are saying. I don't know why you would suggest such a thing. — frank

Because it is true? But maybe you don't get my meaning and are making it too concrete. I've met dozens of folk who work in government and management who can talk for an hour using ready to assemble phrases and current buzz words without saying anything and - more importantly - not knowing what they are saying.

If everything is consciousness, is consciousness regarded as natural?

Was there a question? Language is never the thing it describes so it is not surprising that language can be mastered and words mustered that never make contact with experience. It strikes me too that people are often not much better than computers and often master languages - management speak, or whatever and have no idea what they are saying.

"Suppose, however, that God did give this law to the Jews, and did tell them that whenever a man preached a heresy, or proposed to worship any other God that they should kill him; and suppose that afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came to this very chosen people and taught a different religion, and that thereupon the Jews crucified him; I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he had sown? What right would this god have to complain of a crucifixion suffered in accordance with his own command?"
Robert Ingersoll

Maybe I missed my calling after all. More or less, this was one of my apostatic "arguments" when I was sixteen: Adam & Even were set-up for "The Fall". — 180 Proof

I think this is a profound reading. And in a similar vein please explain Jesus - is it not the case that God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself for rules he made himself? What magical recalibration took place on Calvary? It seems like a pointless ritual to justify some megalomaniacal decision making process.

I don't know of anything that is 'supernatural'. How would we even identify this attribute? I am only aware of claims people make about entities or phenomena for which there is no great evidence. I take the view that whatever we see or experience is likely to be 'natural' or quotidian. But this is provisional.

What is this power you’re talking about? Is it the ability to influence others or something entirely different. — I like sushi

Power has many definitions. I'm not interested in all variations. I was feeding back a few thoughts about leadership and those in an elevated position of authority who might abuse that status. I am not saying that this is always the case. Remember Lord Acton's quote - I was at pains to reinstate the word "may".

Dishonesty doesn’t necessarily have be external. I’m pretty sure the dishonesty towards oneself is a greater problem than dishonesty towards other (as it appears to be the seed of the later). — I like sushi

Can you explain this with an example? I can't make out the point.

Then there is being dishonest towards what one believes to be a ‘corrupt’ individual in order to do any with perceived ‘corruption’. See my point? — I like sushi

No.

The question isn't defining power, it is trying to determine where the line is between stewardship and authoritarianism and how to prevent the former from becoming the latter.

Power can be described as having control, a mandate, influence, authority and autonomy. It can come in absolute forms or it can be tempered by checks and balances.

Thomas Jefferson was less optimistic than Acton.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

What is this power you’re talking about? Is it the ability to influence others or something entirely different. — I like sushi

Acton was referring to government power, but it's an observation others have made. I don't need to explain to anyone here the uses and abuses of power in government. I think it is a function of power that those who seek it most are frequently ruthless. Chasing power is like chasing wealth - the most inadequate personalities seem to go after it at all costs.

One related theme is the idea of leadership - how power is used to create cultures and behaviours.

Would a lack of power also be considered ‘corrupt’? Meaning lacking any ability to control or make choices for oneself or others? — I like sushi

Not sure this makes sense. Corruption is choosing to behave dishonestly in return for personal gain. So no.

People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. Here ‘control’/‘influence’/‘manipulate’/‘help’ are hard to distinguish from each other once we strip away the subjective perspectives and goals. — I like sushi

Some people might think they are the same but I don't. I'm not much interested in explorations of 'power over others' in limited roles like a doctor or teacher or cab driver. I am more interested in power in connection with leadership (organisations or governments). But my interest is fairly limited.

Sentiments like 'power corrupts' are just that. They are myopic in both application and reach. — I like sushi

I have no doubt that Lord Acton's quote is mostly accurate - the actual quote is 'power tends to corrupt' (the tends is important and makes the quote). From personal experience of working in diverse areas - media, the arts and health, I think Acton was on the money. The rest of the quote is, of course, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Absolutely right, which is why democracies have a separation of powers and often a bill of rights to protect people from the abuse of power. Not that this works entirely well.

I'm not really sure what the rest of your OP is getting at. I think it might help to narrow it down a bit

Power we know in the physical sense is about the ability to work. In a more human sense this doesn't quite apply in the same manner as we live across a span of time and not merely in some abstract mathematical moment of 'here and now'. — I like sushi

I can't work out what this means. Sorry.

It may not work. In fact it is highly unlikely that it will work. However, what is there to lose? — Pop

Ok

A definition of art,and I’m not saying my definition is necessarily it, has the potential to shift the power balance in the art world, back into the hands of the intellectuals and the artists. This is my primary goal. It is a long shot indeed! but what is there to loose? it is worth a try, imo.

The definition is useful in these potential ways rather then as something providing clarity about art, or the art world today - whose clarity, and integrity, at present, as you may know, was recently well represented by a banana nailed to the wall. — Pop

I like the idea of this but I can't yet see how it would work. Sorry.

Can you perhaps, using some brief dot points and a given work, step it out for us so we can see it in action?

Even if the 'art world' accepted the idea that art is consciousness, what difference would it make in practice? They already mostly accept that art is the personality of the artist.

I still can't see the use of this in action.

Sorry man, it all seems empty of content. Taking a dump/painting = same thing. It adds nothing to our understanding of art.

So what is expressed - is it not the current state of mind? — Pop

Probably the artist's projected will. To say it is their state of mind would be close to meaningless.

I don't think it reflects anything pathological. — T Clark

You're right. I was just providing trauma as a potential example. But I do think people's life experiences and childhoods (awful or otherwise) play a bigger role in artistic choices than we often think.

Sure angry people can be mellow and gentle at times, but In a fit of rage, all they will express is a fit of rage. — Pop

Untrue. For years I have worked with prisoners and people with vast anti-social behaviors. A fit of rage may be suppressed. What you say only applies if they are acting out. A person's emotional state need not influence on their work unduly.

n any case, what they express is their state of mind - which is their consciousness. — Pop

You still have not answered why using the word consciousness matters and how this is different to an artist expressing their 'personality'. What does this word consciousness mean for art? Everything we do is consciousness if you want. So by definition taking a shit and painting are both produced by same thing. How does it benefit an understanding of art to use this word? You might as well say all art is life. Because all artists are alive when they work.

Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness. — Pop

No, the unconscious may well direct artistic choices and the artist may have little or no capacity to access what the work is expressing. Certainly there are schools of psychology that would hold to this, such as the psychoanalytical school. The artist may have little or no insight into their artwork. I've known enough painters, sculptors and writers to understand that often they are producing works without having the slightest idea why choices are made - it may well be all about their own suppressed childhood or traumas but this may not be known to them or readily obvious in the work.

In a fit of rage, you are not going to express something peaceful and serene, are you? — Pop

Wrong. You may well do just this as a wish fulfillment state. There are angry artists who paint or write mellow and gentle works. I've met them. The opposite can also be true. The idea that a work of art will express the emotional state of an artist is naïve. Often art is an expression of unconscious desires or beliefs or may be deliberate constructions which are attempts to build an alternative reality as a consolation.

I don't know if I'd call this rigorous, but I find it very satisfying - the ground of being. It's what's all the way at the bottom when you've swept everything else away. It's a term sometimes used to describe the indescribable Tao. — T Clark

As you probably know, Paul Tillich, one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the 20th century, used this term 'ground of being' to describe god. God permeates all creation and is the answer to the ontological fear of non-being. Or something like that...

If you can’t aspire to ever-increasing material prosperity, which is what the industrial revolution and the idea of progress has brought, then what do you aspire to? That’s why I think a suitable social and personal philosophy has to be discovered. — Wayfarer

Agree. I suspect this is what's behind the growing minimalism movement (which like anything else has also been hijacked by posers). I've been practicing a form of this for around 30 years.

I wanna consider people as proud creatures and not as idiot robots! That way, imo, we help ourselves to grow bigger. Personal responsibility is a huge matter for me. — dimosthenis9

I can respect that. Sounds like you're a romantic, but why not? Take care.

"God's work" as to satisfy their evil instincts but at the same time to justify themselves and not take any blame at all! Hidden behind a "God" and with no sorrows at all. Win win situation for them. — dimosthenis9

Ah, so there's our problem. I don't see that as an excuse. I see that as someone practicing a faith. We need to be comfortable in the realization that some expressions of piety cause harm. Not all, I grant you. But some do and they are practiced with sincerity and not as a 'cover', which is what the word 'excuse' implies.