It's how capitalism works: Get the people to focus on their private lives, and get them to believe that every failure, every problem in their lives is their own fault. This way, they will be avid consumers, they will have little insight into their own needs, and they will have little regard for others (other people, other beings, the planet). While those higher up make a lot of money and the planet turns into hell. — baker

Very good points.

Everyone's got an agenda for you, and that is certainly to keep certain wheels churning. No one cares that it is basically a political agenda to keep things going. It can't be that existence itself just has these flaws inherent.. a pessimism at its core. No, it's YOUR fault for not getting in line with the agenda! It used to be "Buck up!" and now it's "Go see a therapist!". In this thread it's, "You aren't connecting! Follow the mission of connecting!"

No, it wasn’t your choice to be born. No, it isn’t the case that ‘you must’ do anything. Yes, you do have alternative choices to awareness, connection and collaboration: you can always choose ignorance, — Possibility

You are just presenting a false dichotomy here. It's not awareness/connection/collaboration or ignorance. I do have awareness, and that is of having to de facto fall in line, whether I like it or not, lest suicide. That does involve de facto connection and collaboration because of the nature of how we survive and entertain ourselves and that we tend to be social creatures. That isn't anything new.

Yes, I do consider suicide or pessimism to be legitimate choices. I wouldn’t personally make either of those choices at this stage, but I would never say never. — Possibility

Fair enough.

I don’t think BEING is supposed to be about survival, subsistence or incorporation at all. That’s the language of consolidation: of an ‘individual’ whose perceived ego appears to be forced into a life they wouldn’t choose for themselves. — Possibility

Well, yeah, it is. And that's because life can never be not forced. Sorry but it is. You seem to be saying, "You are forced, no get with the program, otherwise SUFFER!!!" (scare quotes and all). I am saying to reject the agenda and not buy into it, whether with sugar (collaborate, therapy) or shit (buck up, STFU and get to working! Stop griping, etc.)!

There’s a sense of attachment to self, here. Bhava Tanha - a craving to be something - comes from a misunderstanding of eternalism/permanence. — Possibility

Yeah yeah, until I start starving and dying of hypothermia and all.. then I have to do things like subsist and survive.. the things you seem to think are a choice. It is, if you want to die a slow death, true.. Not into that either though.. Which is indeed part of the predicament.

"Boredom" is analogous to an over-full belly; we're born hungry and always in homeostatic thrall to the prospect of starving until we die, and s/he who is starving is much more afraid than s/he is bored. Schop was too well-fed, I suspect, which is why his boujee "boredom" seems inescapable to him.

You are just presenting a false dichotomy here. It's not awareness/connection/collaboration or ignorance. I do have awareness, and that is of having to de facto fall in line, whether I like it or not, lest suicide. That does involve de facto connection and collaboration because of the nature of how we survive and entertain ourselves and that we tend to be social creatures. That isn't anything new. — schopenhauer1

I’m not talking about an overall judgement of someone as ‘ignorant’, but the little choices we make everyday to increase awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation AND collaboration/exclusion in every interaction. Let’s take your awareness of suicide - you keep skirting around this subject, as if it’s not a legitimate option, but the fact is that you have chosen to dismiss it for your own reasons - this is not forced. Until you explore the choice and your reasons honestly, recognising them as part of what makes you who you are, you will remain relatively ignorant of this apparent ‘force’ you insist is acting from outside of you.

Well, yeah, it is. And that's because life can never be not forced. Sorry but it is. You seem to be saying, "You are forced, no get with the program, otherwise SUFFER!!!" (scare quotes and all). I am saying to reject the agenda and not buy into it, whether with sugar (collaborate, therapy) or shit (buck up, STFU and get to working! Stop griping, etc.)! — schopenhauer1

Again you misrepresent me - you’re the one adding scare quotes and exclamation marks here. I’m not telling you to get with the program, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the program as ‘forced’ from outside of the ‘individual’. It is this consolidation of the ‘individual’, and with it the isolation or exclusion of opportunities to increase awareness, to connect and collaborate, that contributes to this idea of a ‘forced agenda’.

Yeah yeah, until I start starving and dying of hypothermia and all.. then I have to do things like subsist and survive.. the things you seem to think are a choice. It is, if you want to die a slow death, true.. Not into that either though.. Which is indeed part of the predicament. — schopenhauer1

Subsisting and surviving IS a choice. And you’ve chosen NOT to die a slow death - no-one is forcing you to reject this option, but you. Therefore, you are contributing to your own ‘predicament’. I’m not the one buying into anything here...

"Boredom" is analogous to a over-full belly; we're born hungry and always in homeostatic thrall of the prospect of starving until we die, and s/he who is starving is much more afraid than s/he is bored. Schop was too well-fed, I suspect, which is why "boredom" seems so inescapable for him (i.e. his class). — 180 Proof

C'mon proof.. Schop talked about the pendulum swing of survival and boredom.. He never disregarded survival as that is a given. He focused on boredom because the full belly reveals at the end what was always there.. "like a bird of prey" as he says.. You can do better than simply making it about a rich guy who had nothing better to do. If anything, he gets to see the revelation more than others, that's all :).

I’m not talking about an overall judgement of someone as ‘ignorant’, but the little choices we make everyday to increase awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation AND collaboration/exclusion in every interaction. Let’s take your awareness of suicide - you keep skirting around this subject, as if it’s not a legitimate option, but the fact is that you have chosen to dismiss it for your own reasons - this is not forced. Until you explore the choice and your reasons honestly, recognising them as part of what makes you who you are, you will remain relatively ignorant of this apparent ‘force’ you insist is acting from outside of you. — Possibility

Oh the "Why don't you pessimists/antinatalists go kill yourself" trope :roll:. You mean being in a position where one has to decide to commit suicide or join the program?

Again you misrepresent me - you’re the one adding scare quotes and exclamation marks here. I’m not telling you to get with the program, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the program as ‘forced’ from outside of the ‘individual’. It is this consolidation of the ‘individual’, and with it the isolation or exclusion of opportunities to increase awareness, to connect and collaborate, that contributes to this idea of a ‘forced agenda’. — Possibility

Actually, you can have a community of griping pessimists.. collaborating and connecting about the forced agenda! ;).

Subsisting and surviving IS a choice. And you’ve chosen NOT to die a slow death - no-one is forcing you to reject this option, but you. Therefore, you are contributing to your own ‘predicament’. I’m not the one buying into anything here... — Possibility

It's being forced with the OPTION in the first place of dying a slow fuckn death or outright quicker suicide..both painful to the leadup and scary for most people unless severely strained/depressed... Don't confuse not committing promortalism with pessimism or antinatalism. It is not an inverse relation.. "Your 'decision' to stay alive means you wanted to be in this position in the first place". I mean, how am I NOT wrong that you are existentially gaslighting the hell out of me? (It's not existence, it's you!). You haven't defended anything, but dug yourself deeper as to what I expected. Pessimism does not entail immediate suicide, mam.

Just saying "boredom" is not an "ultimate insight". As I point out (click on the link above), it's fear that is fundamental to existing. And yeah, man, it's a very 'bourgeois trust-fund bachelor' thing to grouse about "boredom". Other pessimists like Freddy, Zapffe, Cioran, Camus, Rosset, Sam Beckett, Tom Ligotti ... aren't, IMO, as shallow as Schop on this point.

's a very 'bourgeois trust-fund bachelor' thing to grouse about "boredom". — 180 Proof

Nah, it's more bougeouis, cliche trust-fund bachelor to characterize it as that.. :yawn: , at those kind of ad homs.. If I can find many instances of poor/tribal/non-Western people to prove my point, you would have to concede?

How is Schop wrong about the idea that we have a "striving-ness" to us that when not occupied by "something" is sort of idling and cannot stand its own striving nature.. thus returning to "something" (usually de facto related to survival.. whether through "work in an industrialized economy", "hunting-gather", "subsistence farming", and all the other things we as humans must do to survive, find comfort, and entertain ourselves (lest we idle again and try to banish this emptiness feeling). That is to say, we are striving, struggling, getting "caught up" because we cannot stand existence sui existence, but only in so much as we can distract, plan, flow state, etc.

It's also not just "bored" in the sense that we mean with just "nothing to do".. It's a much more fundamental kind akin to Ecclesiastes..

I mean, it's gotta whole article here: https://iep.utm.edu/boredom/ . It has been for thousands of years, and will continue to be a central existential understanding of the human condition/experience.

Other pessimists like Freddy, Zapffe, Cioran, Camus, Rosset, Sam Beckett, Tom Ligotti ... aren't, IMO, as shallow as Schop on this point. — 180 Proof

Not at all.. If anything, they're on point the most with that.


Oh I misread what you said.. Zapffe characterized the existential boredom as a sort of exptation-trait that we distract from and try to ignore. Ligotti, had a dark interpretation of the boredom as being "malignantly useless".. when one reflects on the idling/survival...Cioran agreed with the existential boredom but used irony to prove it, Nietzsche was advocating for Sisyphus on steroids.. Camus was more nuanced in that Sisyphus didn't need to try as hard :) (it seems to me at least),

My own addition is that by being born at all we are forced into a socio-culturo-political agenda (lest suicide by slow or fast death). Solution: Griping and self-understanding (consolation through shared Pessimism) and not forcing others into the agenda (antinatalism).

Added more...

Added even more...

My own addition is that by being born at all we are forced into a socio-culturo-political agenda (lest suicide by slow or fast death). Solution: Griping and self-understanding (consolation through shared Pessimism) and not forcing others into the agenda (antinatalism). — schopenhauer1

The notion of consent is a socio-political notion. So, yes, it is talked about in the world of philosophers, not just Schopenhauer's. There's actually an argument about the formation of a society, say a first society, where adults gather together to talk about the rules and laws. Well and good. But then, after this society is formed, there'd be babies born into this society without the benefit of providing their consent, so what to do if you're one of those babies who become an adult and find that the society you live in, whose rules you didn't consent to, is disagreeable to you.
One, people can't tell you to move to another society since not everyone can for various reasons. (Of course you can if you volunteer, but this is not the point).

Two, people shouldn't force you to accept the rules and laws you find objectionable.

Third, so what should those people do? Apparently, you can't blame the first people who formed your society for making those rules since you weren't born yet or weren't of age to consent. When you're born into a fully formed society, the first people are not under obligation to ask for your consent. Your consent isn't on a level of their consent.

I’m not talking about an overall judgement of someone as ‘ignorant’, but the little choices we make everyday to increase awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation AND collaboration/exclusion in every interaction. Let’s take your awareness of suicide - you keep skirting around this subject, as if it’s not a legitimate option, but the fact is that you have chosen to dismiss it for your own reasons - this is not forced. Until you explore the choice and your reasons honestly, recognising them as part of what makes you who you are, you will remain relatively ignorant of this apparent ‘force’ you insist is acting from outside of you.
— Possibility

Oh the "Why don't you pessimists/antinatalists go kill yourself" trope :roll:. You mean being in a position where one has to decide to commit suicide or join the program? — schopenhauer1

Gross misrepresentation of everything that I’ve written. Read it again.

Again you misrepresent me - you’re the one adding scare quotes and exclamation marks here. I’m not telling you to get with the program, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the program as ‘forced’ from outside of the ‘individual’. It is this consolidation of the ‘individual’, and with it the isolation or exclusion of opportunities to increase awareness, to connect and collaborate, that contributes to this idea of a ‘forced agenda’.
— Possibility

Actually, you can have a community of griping pessimists.. collaborating and connecting about the forced agenda! ;). — schopenhauer1

Sure - I haven’t said that you can’t. But you’re not really going to increase awareness, connection or collaboration beyond those who already agree. From here, all you can do is promote a certain level of ignorance, isolate amongst yourselves and attack or exclude anyone who disagrees with you...

It's being forced with the OPTION in the first place of dying a slow fuckn death or outright quicker suicide..both painful to the leadup and scary for most people unless severely strained/depressed... Don't confuse not committing promortalism with pessimism or antinatalism. It is not an inverse relation.. — schopenhauer1

Wow, you really do reduce everything to a false dichotomy, don’t you? But okay...so you’re recognising a fear of death and an avoidance of pain, and acknowledging that you’re not sufficiently strained or depressed to intentionally pull the plug. That’s a start.

"Your 'decision' to stay alive means you wanted to be in this position in the first place". I mean, how am I NOT wrong that you are existentially gaslighting the hell out of me? (It's not existence, it's you!). You haven't defended anything, but dug yourself deeper as to what I expected. Pessimism does not entail immediate suicide, mam. — schopenhauer1

Well, because that’s not at all what I wrote, and not what I meant. You’re making that interpretation, not me. I agree that your decision to stay alive should not be interpreted as wanting to be in this position. And I agree that pessimism does not entail suicide. What I’m arguing against is the reductionist view of your options here.

It does seem to me that there is a value you attribute to the concept ‘individual’ that is fundamentally absent from any overall measurement you take of BEING. I think that’s a fair assessment from your perspective, and it interestingly has parallels with certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. What makes quantum mechanics work, though (and work more accurately than any empirical method), is that it recognises an interaction between two four-dimensional systems. There is the quantitative measurement of a system, and there is the ‘observer’, which must be qualitatively aligned with the system being measured - that is, it must be attending to a precise four-dimensional location. There simply is no single measurement, description or perspective of a four-dimensional system that will suffice to describe what is in fact a five-dimensional relation. This is because a five-dimensional relation consists of an interaction between two four-dimensional systems, at least. Any four-dimensional system within this interaction can only ever describe the relation in terms of their own qualitative response to another system (eg. Pessimism). Even a reductionist five-dimensional description would consist of a qualitative position (which you’re providing) AND a corresponding quantitative value (which you’re not, although from memory it has to do with ‘harm’?).

What I’m trying to say is that your pessimism as a qualitative position will always correspond to a particular and limited quantitative value, not to some overall or ‘objective’ evaluation of BEING. An accurate five-dimensional (‘individual’) perspective of BEING would need to recognise a qualitative and quantitative relativity to any measurement and/or measurement device. Not to mention that other ‘individuals’ would need to precisely align with either your qualitative position (pessimism) or your precise measurement of BEING first, before they will agree. Not such a surprise that you don’t seem to be making much headway with your arguments, then...

I’m not trying to defend any particular opposing position as negating yours - just the simple validity of disagreeing with your qualitative position. But I don’t appreciate your continued attempts to misrepresent my position, which is not necessarily in opposition to yours at all.

Ignore, isolate, exclude... — Possibility

:up:

I think this is more of a modern problem (as in a problem of the last couple of thousand years ish). There is nothing to suggest that we were living ‘hand to mouth’ prior to this as there was a reasonably bountiful land around us AND far less distractions from reality (through media and such).

It could well be argued that having ‘leisure time’ is more than just a time slot for distracting oneself from existential reality as that idea is in itself possibly part of the modern mindset brought about by living in pursuit of distractions from reality.

In acts or artistic expression there is a kind of meditative state that I would call ‘distraction’ in a negative sense (like merely switching off by watching a braindead movie), yet it is more or less a way of becoming unfocused from day-to-day activities and it frees up ones mind to wander and nurture itself. Maybe creating art is just a means of recalibrating our emotional state in order to be more productive in the future. Some people just happen to be more attuned to this than others and so the ‘recalibrating’ becomes a pursuit of improving their ability to attune themselves rather than to do as a means of moving forward in a more concrete sense of production (eating, sleeping and social functioning).

Boredom for me is merely a sign that I am unconsciously avoiding a hard and difficult problem. It is likely a good idea to avoid some problems. I don’t necessarily think this problem is always ‘existential’ though.

I think you’ve got that backwards. I think meaningless distraction is where boredom stems from. Freedom is also something to consider. All too often people believe they want more freedom when the real reason they feel bound is that they have too much choice and freedom and so get stuck in perpetual states of distraction. It is extremely common (in my life experience) for the remedy to any given situation to be the exact opposite of what you’d think it would be.

Lack of honesty with oneself creates ‘boredom’ and sometimes such states of ‘boredom’ are defence mechanisms that are there to balance our ‘mental wellbeing’.

I can say with age that boredom seems to fade? I’ve not done a survey on this but it has been my observation for those around me. There may be more of a lull in middle age perhaps but generally I believe boredom declines with greater age.

Apparently, you can't blame the first people who formed your society for making those rules since you weren't born yet or weren't of age to consent. When you're born into a fully formed society, the first people are not under obligation to ask for your consent. Your consent isn't on a level of their consent. — L'éléphant

Yes, this is a common objection that I find objectionable. Since there is no person prior to existing for whom consent can be obtained, it is okay to do X which may lead to future outcomes for a person who actually will exist..

You can see the flaw in that right?

Let's say a parent plans to give birth to a child in a pit of a volcano.. They just always wanted to..No consideration matters right, because there isn't a child born yet, so there is no child to ask whether it wanted to be born into a volcano pit, right?

No, I think 99.9% of people would object to this reasoning, and the one in your scenario when looked at it from that vantage point. It is an argument of convenience, not one of soundness.

If someone will be negatively affected by a decision, but consent cannot be had, we would object to any number of scenarios. In every case where we cannot get consent, and we still do something on their behalf, it is a case of amelioration. That is to say, it is trying to prevent a greater harm to that person for a lesser one.. This is not the case in procreation, since there indeed is not a person that needs to be ameliorated.

Gross misrepresentation of everything that I’ve written. Read it again. — Possibility

I read it, and it looks like you are saying, "Hey, you haven't committed suicide, so X, Y, Z about life!". Examine that feeling!"

Sure - I haven’t said that you can’t. But you’re not really going to increase awareness, connection or collaboration beyond those who already agree. From here, all you can do is promote a certain level of ignorance, isolate amongst yourselves and attack or exclude anyone who disagrees with you... — Possibility

You are implying that with some sort of dialectic, using your New Age Hegelian approach, I would move "past" antinatalism/pessimism (meaning that this isn't the right view, but I will move to the "right" view).. I will move to the view of the agenda.. that is more people born, more people that must "collaborate". Collaborate (happiness placement holder) damn you! Follow the Possibility self-help plan! Collaborate, connect! By my interactions I will "grow" and "grow out of pessimism" because pessimism is a self-contained thing and not "truth" which is only had by this instrumental process of connecting and collaborating, that leads to awareness.. Yes, yes, this isn't subtlely just asserting that your view is just "right" by using terms like "collaborate, connect". Just hollow buzzwords if said without context. However, what is YOUR agenda with these words? Certainly you think that collaborating and connecting would never lead to Pessimist conclusions.. No, no, so it is MORE than collaborating.. but collaborating towards SOMETHING that YOU HAVE IN MIND. What is that? Oh right, I'm sure if we examine it more it's just a form of (Hegelian-style?) optimism bullshit. You can always just dodge this with more obfuscation around your use of those words or more unnecessary and non-analogous connections with how this algins with physics concepts.. but, go ahead continue.. Or am I isolating you, and thus not ":hearing" you and thus I just won't ever "get it".. again implications that YOU have SOMETHING IN MIND MORE THAN just CONNECTION and COLLABORATION!

Wow, you really do reduce everything to a false dichotomy, don’t you? But okay...so you’re recognising a fear of death and an avoidance of pain, and acknowledging that you’re not sufficiently strained or depressed to intentionally pull the plug. That’s a start. — Possibility

A start of what? I always acknowledged that being against procreation and following the agenda that procreation brings does not entail suicide. Nor am I necessarily "suicidal". Nor is this "evidence" that I agree with the agenda of life.. So I think we have established all this...

I agree that your decision to stay alive should not be interpreted as wanting to be in this position. — Possibility

Ok, well that's a start :).

What I’m trying to say is that your pessimism as a qualitative position will always correspond to a particular and limited quantitative value, not to some overall or ‘objective’ evaluation of BEING. An accurate five-dimensional (‘individual’) perspective of BEING would need to recognise a qualitative and quantitative relativity to any measurement and/or measurement device. Not to mention that other ‘individuals’ would need to precisely align with either your qualitative position (pessimism) or your precise measurement of BEING first, before they will agree. Not such a surprise that you don’t seem to be making much headway with your arguments, then...

I’m not trying to defend any particular opposing position as negating yours - just the simple validity of disagreeing with your qualitative position. But I don’t appreciate your continued attempts to misrepresent my position, which is not necessarily in opposition to yours at all. — Possibility

Oh right, just presenting enough "data" will magically make the argument stronger. That kind of "data" is always with the view that it is promoting a certain thing.. I am not into the whole hedonic "progress" of "humanity" or "civilization" thing.. which reifies concepts above individuals in their micro-actually living experiences. In that sense, Schop was correct in human nature versus simple economic circumstances. Also, "data" based on some survey of "Most people like life!" doesn't negate the negative aspects of life, and the forced agenda argument I am making.

If you harm someone and then say, "Hey I have data that this was in your interest", did that really "prove" anything other than you "thought" it would be in that persons interest? Just a self-justifying X, so you can do Y to someone else.

Rather I am more deontological/axiological in my approach. That is to say, there is a disrespect (I term it indignity), to the person born by forcing the agenda on them. You can't really "get" at that with data... and "data" in the use of this kind of thing. A more thorough analysis of this is given by philosopher Gerald Harrison. A lot of times our normal intuitions elsewhere do not necessarily align with procreation, even though procreation presents the same moral problems. So, even if one usually can trust moral intuitions, they are not always accurate when there is strong pulls for biases in our intuitions to be against it (e.g. evolutionary/cultural pressures for having certain dispositions).

https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/14444/Antinatalism%20and%20Moral%20Particularism.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

So no, I reject your rejection based on some supposed "lack of quantifiable data" or some shit like that.

Made some additions above.

I think you’ve got that backwards. I think meaningless distraction is where boredom stems from. — ”I like sushi”

I was using the term “meaningless distraction” to refer to something else. I agree that boredom (and ultimately depression) result when a person engages in tasks that they themselves consider to be “meaningless”. I don’t dispute that. I was reacting to Schopenhauer’s claim that any task (indeed, life itself) is ultimately meaningless because it all stems from the avoidance of boredom, and boredom is the essence of life. For Schopenhauer, then, our compulsion to engage in tasks simply reveals our latent antipathy toward life itself. At least, that was my interpretation of his claim, which may have been inaccurate, I don’t know. Anyway, my point was to contrast Schopenhauer’s view of life (i.e. the essence of life is boredom) with an alternative (i.e. the essence of life is the pursuit of meaning, in which boredom plays a role). Perhaps I just didn’t word it very well.

Freedom is also something to consider. All too often people believe they want more freedom when the real reason they feel bound is that they have too much choice and freedom and so get stuck in perpetual states of distraction. It is extremely common (in my life experience) for the remedy to any given situation to be the exact opposite of what you’d think it would be.
Lack of honesty with oneself creates ‘boredom’ and sometimes such states of ‘boredom’ are defence mechanisms that are there to balance our ‘mental wellbeing’. — ”I like sushi”

I agree.

I can say with age that boredom seems to fade? I’ve not done a survey on this but it has been my observation for those around me. There may be more of a lull in middle age perhaps but generally I believe boredom declines with greater age. — ”I like sushi”

It would be interesting to see statistics on this. Perhaps elderly people do not commonly self-identify as being “bored” because life actually gets harder (i.e. more challenging) as you age. I look at my 87 year old Grandfather and it’s a challenge for him just to make it to the breakfast table every morning. After breakfast he spends the rest of the day in front of the TV before beginning the arduous process of going to bed. Twenty years ago he would have described this life as “hell”, but he has reset his expectations due to the physical limitations that prevent him from being more active in the world. His threshold for boredom has changed significantly over the last 10 years as his nervous system has adapted to his circumstances.

Yes, this is a common objection that I find objectionable. Since there is no person prior to existing for whom consent can be obtained, it is okay to do X which may lead to future outcomes for a person who actually will exist..

You can see the flaw in that right? — schopenhauer1

My post is purely out of socio-political reasons. Consent is attached to that notion. But if you want to talk about obligation of parents to unborn children, that's a different issue. Honestly, I can't think of a way to "apologize" to those born into a bad situation. The only thing that I can think of is the liberty of individuals to happiness, which is in the constitution of most, if not all, nations. This right to happiness includes forming a family and bearing children. Now of course we do have laws to protect the children from harm -- which is obvious to everyone. So, I'm not sure what else to say about that.

How is Schop wrong about the idea that we have a "striving-ness" to us that when not occupied by "something" is sort of idling and cannot stand its own striving nature.. thus returning to "something" (usually de facto related to survival.. whether through "work in an industrialized economy", "hunting-gather", "subsistence farming", and all the other things we as humans must do to survive, find comfort, and entertain ourselves (lest we idle again and try to banish this emptiness feeling). That is to say, we are striving, struggling, getting "caught up" because we cannot stand existence sui existence, but only in so much as we can distract, plan, flow state, etc.

It's also not just "bored" in the sense that we mean with just "nothing to do".. It's a much more fundamental kind akin to Ecclesiastes.. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Boredom has a bad reputation, and people generally don't think of it in terms of suffering. In fact, it seems perverse to think of boredom as kind of suffering. It seems to be the privilege of the rich and the idle.

Yet anyone can have the same experience:
When lying down with an illness, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When hungry for a while, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When cold for a while, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When doing work that is either far below one's ability and interest, or far above them, what does one eventually feel? Bored.

Boredom has a bad reputation, and people generally don't think of it in terms of suffering. In fact, it seems perverse to think of boredom as kind of suffering. It seems to be the privilege of the rich and the idle. — baker

Good point. Boredom afflicts many people in the low economic status. And yes there is bias that goes on about boredom. If you're poor, you can't complain of boredom because "why don't you go out there and find a job or find a way to enrich yourself just like how the rich people do it."
It's almost like poverty or low income trumps all other attributes of a person: gay and poor (you're poor); single mother and poor (you're poor); stupid and poor (you're poor); intelligent and poor (you're poor). There's an oxymoron that goes on in "intelligent and poor" that some people would argue about.

Ignore, isolate, exclude... — Possibility

Whatever management seminar you were at where they teach all that about "awareness, connection, and collaboration" ...

Collaboration can only take place between equals. Most of a person's relationships are not with equals, but are hierarchical, so there is actually very little collaboration possible in life. To say that one is "collaborating" with one's boss, one's employees, or one's children is a gross euphemism at best.

Connection is also very limited -- not everyone wants to connect with just anyone else.

For example, from what I've come to know about you here, I am sure that you wouldn't want to "collaborate" or "connect" with me (however you are "aware" of me), but I am sure that you would blame this on me, that I am the one who refuses to "connect" and "collaborate".

You are implying that with some sort of dialectic, using your New Age Hegelian approach, I would move "past" antinatalism/pessimism (meaning that this isn't the right view, but I will move to the "right" view).. I will move to the view of the agenda.. that is more people born, more people that must "collaborate". Collaborate (happiness placement holder) damn you! Follow the Possibility self-help plan! Collaborate, connect! By my interactions I will "grow" and "grow out of pessimism" because pessimism is a self-contained thing and not "truth" which is only had by this instrumental process of connecting and collaborating, that leads to awareness.. Yes, yes, this isn't subtlely just asserting that your view is just "right" by using terms like "collaborate, connect". Just hollow buzzwords if said without context. However, what is YOUR agenda with these words? Certainly you think that collaborating and connecting would never lead to Pessimist conclusions.. No, no, so it is MORE than collaborating.. but collaborating towards SOMETHING that YOU HAVE IN MIND. What is that? Oh right, I'm sure if we examine it more it's just a form of (Hegelian-style?) optimism bullshit. You can always just dodge this with more obfuscation around your use of those words or more unnecessary and non-analogous connections with how this algins with physics concepts.. but, go ahead continue.. Or am I isolating you, and thus not ":hearing" you and thus I just won't ever "get it".. again implications that YOU have SOMETHING IN MIND MORE THAN just CONNECTION and COLLABORATION! — schopenhauer1

I'm having the impression that Possibility is actually getting at the constructed nature of selfhood/identity, saying things like this:

I don’t think BEING is supposed to be about survival, subsistence or incorporation at all. That’s the language of consolidation: of an ‘individual’ [note the quote marks] whose perceived ego appears to be forced into a life they wouldn’t choose for themselves. There’s a sense of attachment to self, here. Bhava Tanha - a craving to be something - comes from a misunderstanding of eternalism/permanence. — Possibility

The idea in this kind of thinking is that we suffer and we are convinced that various unfair things befall us (specifically, having been born) because we construe ourselves as persons, because we take for granted that we really exist, as solid entities (but which are nevertheless subject to birth, aging, illness, and death).

In other words, you gripe about having been born because you see yourself as a person. If you didn't see yourself that way, you'd have nothing to gripe about.

In other words, you gripe about having been born because you see yourself as a person. If you didn't see yourself that way, you'd have nothing to gripe about. — baker

Yet this self-hood is at the heart of being born at all.. The fact that we even need a way out is something to look at first. If a perspective change happens through some Buddhist technique, the fact is, we were in place A (not Enlightened), and we need to get to place B (Enlightened).

Also, I just don't buy it.. The self-hood thing is part of moving through the world. Most people just can't become Enlightened ascetics (if that's even a metaphysical "thing" to become).. I may want to be the best X, but doesn't mean I will achieve that.. Same with this. In a way it is aligned with a radical perspective in anthropology that sees humans very cognition as being radically different. Sapir-Whorf like.. You see, Eskimos understand snow better because they have more words for different snow...

So individuals choose to form an identity.. But that's just not true. Humans function (normally) via enculturation using socio-cultural cues aligning with a whole host of human-traits that we evolved to survive and live in the world. If anything, the desire to shed one's self-hood is simply a recognition of the disappointments of the self that must form as being a functioning human. First comes the identity and then comes the detaching from identity.. There is still a "deal with" situation of moving from attached to not attached.. So now there's that put upon the human born into the world...

Also, there is a sense of gaslighting going on.. This kind of "detachment will set you free" thing just isn't feasible because I would be a sitting Buddha for eternity if it were true.. But "something" needs to pee.. It's a "body" that this is happening to.. What is the thing that "feels" the need to release the bodily fluid? What is the thing that decides that it will go in a white bowl rather than on the carpet? Oh it's not "me"? Call it what you want, but now it is just word play semantics.. The "consolidation" of decisions, feelings, and behavior is traditionally assigned as "self" or an "I".. You can't get away from it the instant anything is experienced, desired, needed, etc.. (like the feeling of having to go to the bathroom, or pain, etc.). You can do some practice and say, "This feeling is not "me".. but when you wet yourself, crap yourself, and then starve to death just sitting there.. well, doubtful "you" will let that happen.. The instant "you" do something, that becomes a self needing/desiring.. I don't care what was said earlier as some mantra of "this is not me" prior. Eventually you get up....

The idea in this kind of thinking is that we suffer and we are convinced that various unfair things befall us (specifically, having been born) because we construe ourselves as persons, because we take for granted that we really exist, as solid entities (but which are nevertheless subject to birth, aging, illness, and death).

In other words, you gripe about having been born because you see yourself as a person. If you didn't see yourself that way, you'd have nothing to gripe about. — baker

That’s close, and I appreciate you taking another look. As ‘persons’ (and I use these quotes because I don’t assume we’re talking about an identical concept) we experience our selves as no more than this solidness of our entities - the birth, aging, illness and death to which we are subjected (in four dimensions).

But reason tells us that this entity that is capable of perceiving its own birth-change-death must be at least potentially more than this in order to do so. And the variability with which we each perceive this four-dimensional event (even simply as valuable or not) suggests that these entities interact in a broader sense of reality - one differentiated by value.

Now, I assume we understand that most atoms don’t act like billiard balls, but are relational structures of energy that are variably open to restructure from spatial interaction. And we understand that few three-dimensional objects are impervious to change across time, through interaction. A variability between entities at any dimensional level corresponds to an internal variability of each entity as they interact with each other within a broader dimensionality.

So, it stands to reason that we are at least capable of perceiving our birth-change-death not as ‘solid’ but internally variable, interacting with other event structures, and that this broader sense of reality in which we interact is structured by value. In the same way that time/change can be described as an unavoidable ‘force’ subjected onto a three-dimensional existence, so value/potential is this unavoidable ‘force’ subjected onto a four-dimensional existence.

If we extrapolate this rationality again, it also stands to reason that there is potential variability to our internal value structure in relation to other value structures (persons)...

So what we seem to be griping about is that this value we consolidate as a ‘person’ is not impervious to internal variability through interrelation, like literally everything else.

Also, there is a sense of gaslighting going on.. — schopenhauer1

Can I just address this ‘gaslighting’ accusation for a bit...

Gaslighting: “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.” - Merriam-Webster

In the vernacular, the phrase “to gaslight” refers to the act of undermining another person’s reality by denying facts, the environment around them, or their feelings. Targets of gaslighting are manipulated into turning against their cognition, their emotions, and who they fundamentally are as people.“

“It’s important to separate gaslighting from genuine disagreement, which is common, and even important, in relationships. Not every conflict involves gaslighting, and, of course, there are healthy and helpful ways to resolve conflicts. Gaslighting is distinct because only one of you is listening and considering the other’s perspective and someone is negating your perception, insisting that you are wrong or telling you your emotional reaction is crazy/dysfunctional in some way. — Dr Robin Stern

Without offering an interpretation of what I’m apparently implying, are you able to highlight actual quotes where I have refused to listen or consider your perspective, negated your perception, insisted you were wrong or told you that your emotional reaction was in any way dysfunctional. Meanwhile, take a closer look at your own words...

You are implying that... — schopenhauer1

Just hollow buzzwords... — schopenhauer1

Certainly you think that... — schopenhauer1

...it's just a form of (Hegelian-style?) optimism bullshit — schopenhauer1

...again implications that YOU have SOMETHING IN MIND MORE THAN... — schopenhauer1

Now we can look past all the attempts at emotional manipulation, and address your argument.

This kind of "detachment will set you free" thing just isn't feasible because I would be a sitting Buddha for eternity if it were true.. But "something" needs to pee.. It's a "body" that this is happening to.. What is the thing that "feels" the need to release the bodily fluid? What is the thing that decides that it will go in a white bowl rather than on the carpet? Oh it's not "me"? Call it what you want, but now it is just word play semantics.. The "consolidation" of decisions, feelings, and behavior is traditionally assigned as "self" or an "I".. You can't get away from it the instant anything is experienced, desired, needed, etc.. (like the feeling of having to go to the bathroom, or pain, etc.). You can do some practice and say, "This feeling is not "me".. but when you wet yourself, crap yourself, and then starve to death just sitting there.. well, doubtful "you" will let that happen.. The instant "you" do something, that becomes a self needing/desiring.. I don't care what was said earlier as some mantra of "this is not me" prior. Eventually you get up.... — schopenhauer1

Buddhism is commonly misinterpreted as moralism. “Detachment will set free” is not meant as an imperative, but an invitation to increase awareness in potentiality. Yes, every time we act, we must consolidate a ‘self’. But what we experience, desire or need - that is, what we assign value to - remains potentially a matter of choice, from which we determine a ‘self’ as a value structure, and this allows us to generate a change in distribution of attention and effort that determines bodily action/inaction. It is this ‘sitting Buddha’ (an awareness in potentiality of stillness and no-self) that enables us to employ reason in the determination of ‘self’ rather than being bound by some externally ‘forced’ value structure.

Gaslighting: “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.” — Possibility

Ok, so gaslighting is doing or seeing something crazy and then making the other people think they are crazy for thinking what they witnessed was crazy. So, Trump was a master at gaslighting. He constantly pushed the boundaries of decent presidential behavior and then made everyone else look like they are crazy or overblowing what he just did..

So, for example, the human condition comes with a LOT of inherent and contingent forms of suffering and harm. Yet, what you (albeit subtly) try to do is then say, "No, no, it's not existence that is the problem, it is YOUR problem". Thus I call it "existential gaslighting". It is making what actually is crazy (the pessimistic nature of the human condition) into a personal thing (YOUR problem). Thus things like the ethics of procreation, subjects like the objective understanding of having a willful striving nature, even the complaining about such injustices/tragedies cannot be discussed rationally, you see, because it is all in MY head.. and thus relegated to things like therapy and not philosophy. It is a subtle dismissing of what I am saying by RELATIVIZING it..

Now we can look past all the attempts at emotional manipulation, and address your argument. — Possibility

That is NOT emotional manipulation. That is direct and perhaps "aggressive" in tone. That is right in your face, mam. I did not subtly try to hint at insinuations that you have something else more than "collaboration, connection, awareness" in mind..as that is a process and you dismiss it when used for things you don't find to your taste (like pessimism or antinatalism), and thus you are actually (subtly again) hinting at a NORMATIVE value more than the three-word process you keep listing off. Your process seems to HAVE to lead to a non-pessimist conclusion.. Interesting how that works. It ends up being something like.. "Your distaste for life is something you should reflect upon.. join the connection club that I espouse, and you will join forces with the GREATER awareness of the whole.. etc. etc." How is this not Hegelian in style? All you have to do is add in the Absolute and you're pretty much there. A big behemoth existential process that humans are a part of leading to ultimate growth... Hegel (though his oddly stopped around the Prussian state in the 1800s rather than infinite growth I guess). Anyways, unintentional or not, I'm characterizing it as such as I see the parallels of group-process optimism.

Yes, every time we act, we must consolidate a ‘self’. — Possibility

You don't have to go any further..This is all that matters for a self to be a de facto necessity. Anything beyond this is hocus pocus.

But what we experience, desire or need - that is, what we assign value to - remains potentially a matter of choice, from which we determine a ‘self’ as a value structure, — Possibility

But we still MUST make choices.. The choice-maker is the SELF.. This is all subtle gaslighting, again, to try to say that I should seek therapy and join the "collaboration forces" for your Hegelian whatever, optimism thing.. What you are doing is COMPLETELY overlooking all my griping and just saying, "Hey, that's your problem, not existence's.. it's YOUR CHOICE".. I get what you are saying, mam.. But that doesn't resolve the moral problems of procreation, and the inherent suffering of existence.. No THAT isn't a choice as you KEEP insinuating.

It is this ‘sitting Buddha’ (an awareness in potentiality of stillness and no-self) that enables us to employ reason in the determination of ‘self’ rather than being bound by some externally ‘forced’ value structure. — Possibility

The very fact that I am thrown into this situation at all that I am discussing. Anything, including being a "sitting Buddha" is part of this throwness.. You have the values of the middle-class suppressors here.. "It's all in YOUR MIND" is the way to make people complacent with the existential situation. I think we both agree there is no way out... But I am going to be defiant and not this bullshit, where I place the blame on myself for not "seeing" the bigger picture. Fuck that, mam.

Ok, so gaslighting is doing or seeing something crazy and then making the other people think they are crazy for thinking what they witnessed was crazy. So, Trump was a master at gaslighting. He constantly pushed the boundaries of decent presidential behavior and then made everyone else look like they are crazy or overblowing what he just did.. — schopenhauer1

No - gaslighting is denying aspects of someone else’s experience when it doesn’t fit with your perspective. It’s falsifying by exclusion.

So, for example, the human condition comes with a LOT of inherent and contingent forms of suffering and harm. Yet, what you (albeit subtly) try to do is then say, "No, no, it's not existence that is the problem, it is YOUR problem". Thus I call it "existential gaslighting". It is making what actually is crazy (the pessimistic nature of the human condition) into a personal thing (YOUR problem). Thus things like the ethics of procreation, subjects like the objective understanding of having a willful striving nature, even the complaining about such injustices/tragedies cannot be discussed rationally, you see, because it is all in MY head.. and thus relegated to things like therapy and not philosophy. It is a subtle dismissing of what I am saying by RELATIVIZING it.. — schopenhauer1

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. What I’m saying is that perceiving a ‘problem’ with existence - this pessimistic nature of the human condition - is indicative of a value structure that conceives the ‘individual’ as more important, greater qualitative value, than existence. What is ‘problematic’ is how this value structure relates to the measurable potential of existence (ie. its quantitative value) being greater than that of the individual. Formal logic insists that only one of these value structures can be our ‘true’ value structure - so it seems as if we’re ‘forced’ to choose between the qualitative primacy of the individual (in which case the problem is existence), or the quantitative primacy of existence (in which case the problem is individual, personal).

My argument is that this conflict in value structures or double bind is a relative condition, as in not absolute, which is not the same as dismissing it. Of course it’s relative - it’s a human condition. But I do think there is a rational way of looking at this that effectively renders the problem you’re outlining as an illusion - in much the same way as the earth being flat is an illusion.

I think you’ve demonstrated that it’s possible to have a reasonable discussion about ‘injustices/tragedies’ such as the ethics of procreation and having a wilful striving nature - so long as the participants share this value structure - but I would argue that it isn’t an entirely rational discussion. Take a breath before you respond now, because a rational discussion isn’t twisting my words so that they seem like an attack, an insinuation, or an accusation towards YOU. No-one can be both rational and defiant at the same time. If you’re feeling existentially threatened by what I’m saying, then I ask you to imagine for a moment that there is no person at this end, and examine the words as if they were just ideas in a rational structure, void of intention or feeling. Just try it.

I did not subtly try to hint at insinuations that you have something else more than "collaboration, connection, awareness" in mind..as that is a process and you dismiss it when used for things you don't find to your taste (like pessimism or antinatalism), and thus you are actually (subtly again) hinting at a NORMATIVE value more than the three-word process you keep listing off. Your process seems to HAVE to lead to a non-pessimist conclusion.. Interesting how that works. It ends up being something like.. "Your distaste for life is something you should reflect upon.. join the connection club that I espouse, and you will join forces with the GREATER awareness of the whole.. etc. etc." How is this not Hegelian in style? All you have to do is add in the Absolute and you're pretty much there. A big behemoth existential process that humans are a part of leading to ultimate growth... Hegel (though his oddly stopped around the Prussian state in the 1800s rather than infinite growth I guess). Anyways, unintentional or not, I'm characterizing it as such as I see the parallels of group-process optimism. — schopenhauer1

No - the process leads to... collaboration, connection and awareness - it’s neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If I choose to be optimistic about it - well, that’s my choice, as I’ve said. Repeatedly.

Yes, every time we act, we must consolidate a ‘self’.
— Possibility

You don't have to go any further..This is all that matters for a self to be a de facto necessity. Anything beyond this is hocus pocus. — schopenhauer1

Right - de facto, which is relative to value structure, and contingent upon action. That’s an illusion of ‘necessity’.

But we still MUST make choices.. The choice-maker is the SELF.. This is all subtle gaslighting, again, to try to say that I should seek therapy and join the "collaboration forces" for your Hegelian whatever, optimism thing.. What you are doing is COMPLETELY overlooking all my griping and just saying, "Hey, that's your problem, not existence's.. it's YOUR CHOICE".. I get what you are saying, mam.. But that doesn't resolve the moral problems of procreation, and the inherent suffering of existence.. No THAT isn't a choice as you KEEP insinuating. — schopenhauer1

No - the CHOICE is the self, and it exists only in potentiality. I’ve also explained to you before that I don’t consider procreation a necessity nor an obligation, and that reducing suffering is a fundamental aspect of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration.

It is this ‘sitting Buddha’ (an awareness in potentiality of stillness and no-self) that enables us to employ reason in the determination of ‘self’ rather than being bound by some externally ‘forced’ value structure.
— Possibility

The very fact that I am thrown into this situation at all that I am discussing. Anything, including being a "sitting Buddha" is part of this throwness.. You have the values of the middle-class suppressors here.. "It's all in YOUR MIND" is the way to make people complacent with the existential situation. I think we both agree there is no way out... But I am going to be defiant and not this bullshit, where I place the blame on myself for not "seeing" the bigger picture. Fuck that, mam. — schopenhauer1

You’re playing the victim. And you clearly have no idea what my values are, as you can’t get beyond your own. It’s not about either complacency or defiance, nor about finding a way out, but a way through. This is easier to do when you can imagine the situation from a position already beyond it.

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. What I’m saying is that perceiving a ‘problem’ with existence - this pessimistic nature of the human condition - is indicative of a value structure that conceives the ‘individual’ as more important, greater qualitative value, than existence — Possibility

Huh? This is more gaslighting. The world I understand is through my mediating self. It was the individual brought into existence and that suffers. You can twist that logic all you want and you ain’t gonna change that point. I might interact from it and learn information that I can process to survive in my environment and entertain, but it’s still the individual who is processing and using this information and outputting it. You can’t just skip over that.

Formal logic insists that only one of these value structures can be our ‘true’ value structure - so it seems as if we’re ‘forced’ to choose between the qualitative primacy of the individual (in which case the problem is existence), or the quantitative primacy of existence (in which case the problem is individual, personal). — Possibility

This sounds incoherent. It sounds like you are saying what I already gathered, that it’s the individuals fault for experiencing the sufferings and harms. It also sounds like you think you can take the view from nowhere regarding your own existence. But you can’t. All choices are mediated by a person with a will, values, reasons, goals, etc that de facto are forced upon them as they are born and interacting.

No - the process leads to... collaboration, connection and awareness - it’s neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If I choose to be optimistic about it - well, that’s my choice, as I’ve said. Repeatedly. — Possibility

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..

You’re playing the victim. And you clearly have no idea what my values are, as you can’t get beyond your own. It’s not about either complacency or defiance, nor about finding a way out, but a way through. This is easier to do when you can imagine the situation from a position already beyond it. — Possibility

Then tell me your philosophy! Can you actually summarize your argument in a succinct intelligible way? Do you even grasp what I’m arguing? All I’m getting from you is that it’s the pessimists fault for not seeing some truth that I’m sure you think you have access to cause you are seeing it from some quantitative way.