I am quite certain that we are _not_ "approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure".

Anything that is less than the complete cessation of suffering is not relevant to my theme. You seem to be saying that the complete cessation of suffering is not possible. On this account, I'm interested in seeing what you have to offer, hence why I'm still discussing this. — baker

I’m not saying it’s not possible - I’m saying that it’s not something an individual can achieve. It’s going to take more than navel-gazing or moral imperatives.

The operation is a choice the ‘patient’ makes freely, with an understanding of the risks. A failed operation is an opportunity to improve on the next attempt. Or not. And I’m not saying ‘who cares’ at all. I’m just saying that those who consider it worth the risk have often taken more into consideration than you might be aware of yourself in judging them.
— Possibility

I used the theme of the successful operation but with a dead patient to comment on your lack of concern for the people involved, and instead your prefrence for some "bigger picture". — baker

And I’ve disputed your assumption that my discussion of a bigger picture indicates any lack of concern. I certainly wouldn’t consider a ‘successful operation’ with a dead patient to be a case of ‘preference for some bigger picture’. Rather, it’s a narrow perspective that excludes the life of the patient as an aspect of the operation.

It is craving, it's textbook craving. You bring in Buddhist references, so I assume this is the language we can use here. — baker

I’ve merely responded to what I consider to be a misapplication of Buddhist language. You’ve yet to provide an argument that might change my position on this.

I'm not a Buddhist; I'm familiar with the doctrine, though. When I see someone making egregious claims to the effect of "Early Buddhism is wrong", this catches my attention and I want to see what said person has to say, how they hold up in discussion. Whether they can offer something that is superior to what the Buddha of the suttas taught. — baker

I never claimed that Early Buddhism is wrong, only that misinterpretations abound, as in any religion that is based on a living exemplar. The truth of Buddhism is not from interpreting doctrine or written texts, but based on the path taken by Buddha himself, and what it teaches us about ourselves. I would make the same comment of Christianity. The truth of the Tao Te Ching, by comparison, is based on self-reflective interaction with the written text itself (from which subjective translations are misinterpreted).

What is a more satisfactory agenda? Survival is necessary if you don't want to die. But I don't want to die, Survival always takes precedence unless slow suicide.. and so the agenda is followed. How can you ever get beyond that? Survival in a different way? The only thing tried like that is Communism, dictatorship/fascisms and that is just working for different masters. Communes always take place in a broader context of the bigger society (in the West's case a globalized industrialized economy). It's rearranging the chairs on the Titanic sort of thinking.

Besides which, as this whole thread is about, we are at root, always dissatisfied. Thus, changing economic arrangements doesn't negate the fact that BEING is never enough for us. In other words, it's too late for us, the already born. We can simply recognize the situation for what it is. Maybe we can be less of assholes to each other.. but we still have to be assholes to an extent because, as per your "wonderful notion" we need to "collaborate" in order so we don't die. But that means you have to do the shit that the agenda has for you to do.. The necessary things your social arrangement has provided for you to participate in....

THE AGENDA takes many political-cultural arrangements.. Tribal-Hunter-gatherer, pastoral, industrial post-modern, what have you... It doesn't matter.. The dissatisfied self-reflective human must survive yet is doomed to know it must do so, even if it doesn't like the various tasks necessary to do so.. But like a bird of prey.. our dissatisfied minds can't just be satisfied with subsisting, we must set goals that when reached only satisfy for a short time for yet more goals. And sure, pipe dreams of enlightened monks or what not aside, it's inescapable.

Just don't put more people in this inescapable/unjust situation in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Why don’t you want to die? What is so important about survival that we must strive for it? You do know that it’s ultimately a lost cause - nobody survives for very long. Take away the existing agenda, and what is it that we really achieve in surviving as long as we can? From the moment we could procreate we had a legitimate alternative to mere survival. And from the moment we could communicate abstract ideas, we had a legitimate alternative to procreation.

Back when survival or death appeared the only options, people would use it as a reason to gain compliance from others: If you don’t do this, you’ll die. Being was of the utmost importance. Then we recognised that procreation allowed us to transcend what was ultimately a limited BEING - to collaborate beyond our own BEING and achieve something together that we couldn’t manage alone: potential or value beyond our capacity to survive.

We eventually realised that BEING isn’t enough - this individual potential we perceived before us in our creation, which we strived to protect as the most important aspect of our existence, appeared to be limited by the very act of BEING.

So, is it even possible to actualise this individual’s potential within a limited capacity of BEING? Do we try to maximise BEING? ie. go back to prioritising survival, or create more variations on BEING? Or do we forget about trying to survive or to BE, and instead find a way to maximise awareness of this value and potential, without necessitating BEING any of it? And how does that even work?

Now, bear with me here - language doesn’t lend itself well to this type of discussion...

So let’s imagine for a moment that survival is NOT important. What matters is not how long we can stay alive, or even how many variations on BEING we can create. What matters is how we make use of the potential we have, within this limited BEING, to express our potentiality - not just as individuals, but as humanity. To do that, we have to let go of this supposed importance of BEING in itself.

Being is just a variable, temporal iteration of our full potentiality, as a means to increase the diverse expression of potentiality in the world. We have variable, limited resources of time, effort and attention available to us - what we do with that is ultimately not up to anyone else, despite what they might say about what we SHOULD do, or how they might treat us less valuably if we don’t. Our value is not diminished by a perception of us by others based on a current observation of being - only ignored.

This AGENDA is then just an attempt to structure potential and value as a set of norms to keep this variability of being to a minimum. Otherwise, anything goes, and chaos reigns. So long as there is only one ‘correct’ or ‘moral’ set of behaviours able to maximise our perceived potential as a human being, we will focus on this rather than on the uniqueness of our own potentiality. The problem is that the only way to minimise this variability is by prioritising inefficient aspects of BEING such as procreation, self and survival - which limit individual potential. This takes the focus off our capacity to maximise awareness of the diverse potentiality behind any iteration of being.

Gloomy Guses & Negative Nancies are one up on the Dr. Panglosses and Polyannas of the world?! Well, I'll be damned!

MJ!

Why don’t you want to die? — Possibility

Fear of pain and unknown. Stop falling for cliched anti antinatalists arguments if “If you don’t kill your self, life must be good or you must be holding onto something”.. Antinatalism doesn’t entail promortalism. You’re better than that. I don’t deny that it is natural for people to fear death. But don’t mistake that for proof that life is thus good. Hope you aren’t making that vapid claim that even a Five year old can break apart.

Then we recognised that procreation allowed us to transcend what was ultimately a limited BEING - — Possibility

Poetic way of origin story. People liked to fuck and made abstract reasonings after, but yeah prolonging the tribal lineage and family lineage was one of the stories.

to collaborate beyond our own BEING and achieve something together that we couldn’t manage alone: potential or value beyond our capacity to survive. — Possibility

Right, just because it’s in the name of survival doesn’t take away the injustice of using the child. It again is a political move on behalf of the child.

This AGENDA is then just an attempt to structure potential and value as a set of norms to keep this variability of being to a minimum. Otherwise, anything goes, and chaos reigns. So long as there is only one ‘correct’ or ‘moral’ set of behaviours able to maximise our perceived potential as a human being, we will focus on this rather than on the uniqueness of our own potentiality. The problem is that the only way to minimise this variability is by prioritising inefficient aspects of BEING such as procreation, self and survival - which limit individual potential. This takes the focus off our capacity to maximise awareness of the diverse potentiality behind any iteration of being. — Possibility

Ugh you sound like a New Age version of Apokrisis bullshit about constraint and degrees of freedom..just say Peircean triadic form, and I’ll say BINGO!

Just because a system is created for people to individually pursue their interests whilst maximally collaborating in the market place for survival, doesn’t solve the problems I discuss. The dissatisfaction behind human motivation..this CANNOT be minimized. Buddhism attempts to at most which is why Schops affinity for it. But not important, it doesn’t negate the deep injustice of assuming other people should join the system or ;even more presumptuous and messianic) MUST join the system. THAT is the original sin placed upon each humans head. The idea that we must value constraints because they are necessary to prevent chaos and maximize freedom is lukewarm utilitarian optimism thinking. It literally is just doubling down on the current form of the agenda..giving an extra holiday for your worker or one less ready reason to fire them, or having a nicer HR dept doesn’t solve anything. Either does more freedom to pursue this or that whilst contributing to the group. It’s like you want to manage the intractable existential situation with a management symposium. Or on the other side, having the worker find a better self-help book to cope with managing the system... C'mon.. Management as philosophy now :roll:

So what to do as individuals already born into the system. As I said we are already fucked, but I say take the Stance of Rebellion. The rebellion is not Sisyphus happy or Eternal Return or anything like that. It’s recognizing the situation for what it is and having always at the forefront of what one does or say, in a way it’s being authentic about the pessimistic situation. We can’t do anything, we are fucked but make it KNOWN. Don’t be afraid to piss off those who want to keep spreading the agenda. Climb every mountain and travel the world and help the poor are all fine and dandy but nothing more than “Just Do It” optimism slogans that fit right into the agendas need for you to feel this agenda is good enough. It’s all subsumed in the greater tragedy that these individuals thriving and dying were thrown into the agenda. Collateral damage and coercive de facto forced agenda rules this world. Your utility maximizing schemes just reinforce it, so keep at it so I can just continue to critique it. Cause it will never resolve the problems brought up here. Rebel, be pissed at the injustice, and discontinue.

Oh dear...You really are only seeing what you want to see...

I say embrace the CHAOS - throw out the agenda and value the full diversity of potentiality regardless of being - it’s the only way to maximise freedom. It’s what I’ve been saying all along, and yet you just won’t see it. No imagination is my guess.

You think your griping is a ‘stance of rebellion’, but it’s a victim stance and nothing more. Minimising the variability of perceived potential through moralism is the main agent of the agenda, and you’re only contributing to it with your ‘injustice of using the child’ argument. You’re not making any impact, you’re deep in it and looking for someone else to blame for your debilitating fear of what’s beyond this agenda. And then you reframe your perspective of everyone else’s position as either on your side or opposing you in some narrow moralistic stance as if the truth according to Schop1 is all there is.

Fear of pain and unknown. Stop falling for cliched anti antinatalists arguments if “If you don’t kill your self, life must be good or you must be holding onto something”.. Antinatalism doesn’t entail promortalism. You’re better than that. I don’t deny that it is natural for people to fear death. But don’t mistake that for proof that life is thus good. Hope you aren’t making that vapid claim that even a Five year old can break apart. — schopenhauer1

Enough with the strawmen - I asked you why you don’t want to die, NOT to construct some argument for the value of being, but because it is your fear of pain and the unknown that keeps you from simply throwing out this crappy agenda - one that values BEING as the constraints of our ultimate potentiality - and finding your own way without it. The agenda plays on your fears, and you let it.

You know that there’s more to your potential than your limited being alone will ever realise. But what you don’t seem to recognise is that every time you take a chance and choose other than this agenda in interacting with others - because you can - you draw attention to everyone’s capacity to do the same. The agenda says avoid boredom at all cost - but it is in choosing to embrace boredom that we learn more about our potential regardless of productive action. The agenda says procreate - but it is in choosing not to create another limited being who must develop awareness of potentiality all over again, that we are left to focus on increasing awareness of this potentiality we already perceive as valuable beyond its limited capacity to BE.

So, what use does this unrealised value or potentiality have, if we can’t BE all of that value ourselves? We can use it to increase others’ awareness of their own potentiality and value, which ultimately increases their awareness of ours. We can refrain from judging others by their current state of being, and instead perceive their far greater potentiality as their real, valuable existence, despite how they might appear.

And this leads me to the issue I have with what you’ve been doing here. You can perceive your own individual potentiality, and lament its limitations in being, but you seem unable (or unwilling) to perceive the potentiality of others here beyond their current state of being - ie. what they’ve said. You are judging others by the being indicated in their words, and you feel justified in doing so because it satisfies your worldview that we’re all limited to being - even though you know by your own experience that you are merely limited BY being, and that your perceivable value is so much more.

So we can talk about potentiality and value, and even how it relates to antinatalism and pessimism - but if you continue to reduce your perception of my potentiality to mere being while upholding your own perspective as the highest moral value, then we are done here, because your self-righteous attitude is wearing thin...

Minimising the variability of perceived potential through moralism is the main agent of the agenda, and you’re only contributing to it with your ‘injustice of using the child’ argument. You’re not making any impact, you’re deep in it and looking for someone else to blame for your debilitating fear of what’s beyond this agenda. And then you reframe your perspective of everyone else’s position as either on your side or opposing you in some narrow moralistic stance as if the truth according to Schop1 is all there is. — Possibility

There is nothing "beyond the agenda". Survival, dissatisfaction_____Contingent suffering.

Enough with the strawmen - I asked you why you don’t want to die, NOT to construct some argument for the value of being, but because it is your fear of pain and the unknown that keeps you from simply throwing out this crappy agenda - one that values BEING as the constraints of our ultimate potentiality - and finding your own way without it. The agenda plays on your fears, and you let it. — Possibility

Don't even know what you mean. Too much vague abstraction.. So the agenda is the decision that someone else must live in the socio-cultural-economic-political, historically-derived (situatedness) way of life needed for survival and satisfying dissatisfaction (boredom). There are no creative solutions around it.. Already discussed communes, tribal societies, and all the other arrangements.. And Buddhism, the "internal" arrangement of the mind, if you will. I explained how there are no escape hatches. Your vagueness surrounding the idea of "Potentiality" with no real concrete examples, just speaks to the fact that there are indeed no real solutions. Prevention rather than escape is all I'm saying.

You know that there’s more to your potential than your limited being alone will ever realise. But what you don’t seem to recognise is that every time you take a chance and choose other than this agenda in interacting with others - because you can - you draw attention to everyone’s capacity to do the same. The agenda says avoid boredom at all cost - but it is in choosing to embrace boredom that we learn more about our potential regardless of productive action. The agenda says procreate - but it is in choosing not to create another limited being who must develop awareness of potentiality all over again, that we are left to focus on increasing awareness of this potentiality we already perceive as valuable beyond its limited capacity to BE. — Possibility

So this is all convoluted language that says nothing. Concrete examples or this is talking in circles to look like there's a there there. The more concrete though, the more I will show you there is nothing, so perhaps you are afraid to?

So, what use does this unrealised value or potentiality have, if we can’t BE all of that value ourselves? We can use it to increase others’ awareness of their own potentiality and value, which ultimately increases their awareness of ours. We can refrain from judging others by their current state of being, and instead perceive their far greater potentiality as their real, valuable existence, despite how they might appear. — Possibility

But again, WHAT does "potentiality" mean in this case? It usually leads back to a) Productive achievements b) Capacity for some metaphysical Enlightenment

Productive achievements can be economic production, mastery of hobbies, starting charity, contributing to the tribe, whatever..

Enlightenment can be some sort of spiritual awakening, aka Buddhist Nirvana..

I mean the third common one is relationship-building.. that might be the one you're going to use.. Friendship, connection, yadayada.. That's the one, right? There's nothing you are going to say that's going to shatter my foundation and realize what a silly person I was.. Especially not convoluted, abstract talk about potentiality and connections..

even though you know by your own experience that you are merely limited BY being, and that your perceivable value is so much more. — Possibility

Perceivable value?? Huh??

So we can talk about potentiality and value, and even how it relates to antinatalism and pessimism - but if you continue to reduce your perception of my potentiality to mere being while upholding your own perspective as the highest moral value, then we are done here, because your self-righteous attitude is wearing thin... — Possibility

Yeah same to you? I mean, I can't talk to you because you choose to use self-referential, vague language like potential and value.. without any context or definition.

What do you mean IN CONCRETE TERMS of "Perception of my potentiality to mere being".. What the hell?

Again, WHAT is the potentiality?? For WHAT? It's all circular talk and no actual meaning conveyed. It's like the soda water of philosophy.. there is a hint of a flavor of something there, but there is no real flavor beyond that hint. It's words bereft of sense. In Wittgenstein-speak, you are playing a language game I am not privy to and thus we are not speaking the same language.. You are not translating so we will be at crossroads until you explain your language game.

If you are just re-creating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and (middle-class trope) of "Self-actualization", just say it. We can also read 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and What Color is Your Parachute?, afterwards (please read sarcasm there).

Eh, I don't care for this "First rule of Fight Club is don't talk about Fight Club". Like if you want to discuss it fine.. — schopenhauer1

No, it's not fine.

My point is that you're confusing yourself with low-grade sources about Buddhism, and this leads you astray on many aimless tangents. Thus causing yourself suffering, and unnecessarily so.

There is no need to insist in those low-grade sources about Buddhism. If you'd study up on Buddhism, you'd see that many of your ideas about it are wrong, even though you apparently get emotional satisfaction from them, which is why you insist in them and refuse to eliminate them. Your wrong ideas about Buddhism are a great source of pleasure for you, and you apparently don't want to jeopardize that by educating yourself or dropping the whole thing altogether.

You I believe were the one bringing up ideas of the no self and Buddhism etc.. So I am accommodating.. I couldn't give a shit really about ideas of the "no real self self" thing..

Indeed, as I was trying to explain another poster's points.

Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle.
— baker

That's just the middle-class perspective /.../

Not at all. It is closer to the upper class' "stiff upper lip".

.. fuck that, I'm COMPLAINING!!! The situation is FUCKED and there is NOTHING besides NOT SPREADING IT TO OTHERS one can do about it..

Talk about limiting beliefs.

This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency.
— baker

What the fuck matters about common decency when one is thrown into a situation one would not ask for and given the option of suicide or comply as a way out? Sitting and trying to rid the self of self or any Buddhist thing you want to think of is just one coping mechanism.. It doesn't mean that the peaceful looking monk is any more dignified than the smug asshole statue of some Roman Stoic philosopher.. Both just coping mechanisms my man.

You're high-maintenance ...

I’ve merely responded to what I consider to be a misapplication of Buddhist language. You’ve yet to provide an argument that might change my position on this. — Possibility

For that, you'd have to study the suttas yourself. But this appears to be out of the question for you, you don't see the texts as authoritative.

I never claimed that Early Buddhism is wrong, only that misinterpretations abound, as in any religion that is based on a living exemplar. The truth of Buddhism is not from interpreting doctrine or written texts, but based on the path taken by Buddha himself, and what it teaches us about ourselves. I would make the same comment of Christianity. The truth of the Tao Te Ching, by comparison, is based on self-reflective interaction with the written text itself (from which subjective translations are misinterpreted).

"Misinterpretations".

Suit yourself.

If you are just re-creating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and (middle-class trope) of "Self-actualization", just say it. We can also read 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and What Color is Your Parachute?, afterwards (please read sarcasm there). — schopenhauer1

Haha.

I used to think that people who are successful in their careers and who have "made it" in life had first figured out the Big Metaphysical Questions, the Meaning of Life Problem, and then, with the solution firmly in their pocket, went on to succeed, one sure step after another.

Turns out one doesn't need any of this in order to succeed in life. People's minds can be utterly barbaric, yet they can still do well in life. And be happy!!!!!

There is nothing "beyond the agenda". Survival, dissatisfaction_____Contingent suffering. — schopenhauer1

How can you prove this assertion? The agenda is a fundamentally illogical framework. A strawman and a scapegoat.

And then there is the concept of ‘someone’ you claim is constrained by a forced agenda into being. Is it not your argument that this someone as not-being is more valuable than being? How so, if they are not ‘beyond the agenda’?

Don't even know what you mean. Too much vague abstraction.. So the agenda is the decision that someone else must live in the socio-cultural-economic-political, historically-derived (situatedness) way of life needed for survival and satisfying dissatisfaction (boredom). There are no creative solutions around it.. Already discussed communes, tribal societies, and all the other arrangements.. And Buddhism, the "internal" arrangement of the mind, if you will. I explained how there are no escape hatches. Your vagueness surrounding the idea of "Potentiality" with no real concrete examples, just speaks to the fact that there are indeed no real solutions. Prevention rather than escape is all I'm saying. — schopenhauer1

But isn’t this ‘someone else’ you value above the agenda just another vague abstraction? How does this ‘someone else’ have so much value unactualised? Where are your concrete examples of this ‘someone else prevented’?

But again, WHAT does "potentiality" mean in this case? It usually leads back to a) Productive achievements b) Capacity for some metaphysical Enlightenment

Productive achievements can be economic production, mastery of hobbies, starting charity, contributing to the tribe, whatever..

Enlightenment can be some sort of spiritual awakening, aka Buddhist Nirvana..

I mean the third common one is relationship-building.. that might be the one you're going to use.. Friendship, connection, yadayada.. That's the one, right? There's nothing you are going to say that's going to shatter my foundation and realize what a silly person I was.. Especially not convoluted, abstract talk about potentiality and connections.. — schopenhauer1

Potentiality is not productive achievements - it’s a perception of energy, capacity, knowledge, skills, education, wealth, connections, relationships, access to resources, morality, respect, value, etc. Productive achievements, people at your party or an increasing bank account are actual, narrowly defined iterations of potentiality - just as procreation is an actual, narrowly defined iteration of this value/potential concept you refer to as ‘someone else’. We reduce more than just ‘individuals’ to actualisation, making them appear easier to define, control, destroy, etc. There’s no proof of potentiality as such - we can only infer and agree potentiality exists, or else actualise it in some way - but then we find a way to reduce our perception to that particular actuality, through ignorance, isolation or exclusion. Like we do to people.

Economic production, for instance, is evidence of economic productivity, a potential. That’s obvious. But economic productivity is a capacity to combine a knowledge of what, out of everything one might produce, would be economically valuable in this current climate, with the right combination of skills and resources to produce it. There’s nothing concrete about this. It’s a structure of potentiality, and is arguably very valuable as such - regardless of whether it is perceived in someone’s mind as manager, or on paper as a business plan. It would be naive to assume that a mere iteration of this potentiality - ie. a currently profiting production team - is the secret to continued success.

But you’ll just judge all of this productivity as ‘following the agenda’... I know. I’m not suggesting we all become economically productive. It’s just one small example of what I mean by potentiality.

What I’m saying is that we can perceive potentiality everywhere - and we have no need to actualise the large majority of it - including more people - in order to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. We just need to stop trying to reduce our perception of reality to concreteness, as if that’s all reality can be.

How can you prove this assertion? The agenda is a fundamentally illogical framework. A strawman and a scapegoat.

And then there is the concept of ‘someone’ you claim is constrained by a forced agenda into being. Is it not your argument that this someone as not-being is more valuable than being? How so, if they are not ‘beyond the agenda’? — Possibility

But isn’t this ‘someone else’ you value above the agenda just another vague abstraction? How does this ‘someone else’ have so much value unactualised? Where are your concrete examples of this ‘someone else prevented’? — Possibility

No, rather you are strawmanning my argument. There is no person being "prevented" before procreation. I didn't talk about a "not-being" that is more valuable than being. I didn't say that where you quoted me, but you implied it.. So you are just bringing up the old "non-identity" argument of a metaphysics I have not proclaimed.. Rather it is thus:

You, the already alive person, can not cause (aka can prevent) collateral damage. You can also not cause a profound life decision of a forced political agenda onto someone. That is it. There is no "someone else" involved here. It is all about already existing people not doing something.

But you’ll just judge all of this productivity as ‘following the agenda’... I know. I’m not suggesting we all become economically productive. It’s just one small example of what I mean by potentiality. — Possibility

You are correct, I am going to judge it as thus, as I expected the whole time.. You were going to use production, family/friends, and some metaphysical enlightenment as your examples of value and potential.

What I’m saying is that we can perceive potentiality everywhere - and we have no need to actualise the large majority of it - including more people - in order to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. We just need to stop trying to reduce our perception of reality to concreteness, as if that’s all reality can be. — Possibility

Again, elusive nothingness phrases like "reduce perception of reality to concreteness if that's all reality can be".. You still don't make any real claims.. It's almost like talking to a bot that was programmed to output "potentiality" and "value" in various philosophically-seeming ways, but on closer inspection means nothing.

No one needs to collaborate, connection, or be aware. Again, if I make a game and I tell you, "If you don't like, it just become more immersed in its various ways to collaborate".. .You can definitely call me an asshole for gaslighting you.. That is the crux of what's wrong with your argument.. You are simply (very slighly and discreetly) reiterating the forced agenda with a kinder machine gun hand.. if you will. Peaceful forced collaboration is still forced collaboration.. It need not be violent or even disharmonious.

You, the already alive person, can not cause (aka can prevent) collateral damage. — schopenhauer1

Damage to what or to whom? People cause collateral damage all the time. But it’s only immoral when said ‘damage’ is caused to someone...

You, the already alive person, can not cause (aka can prevent) collateral damage. You can also not cause a profound life decision of a forced political agenda onto someone. — schopenhauer1

Onto who now?

Onto who now — Possibility

Once a person is created, it is that someone I am referring to.

Once a person is created, it is that someone I am referring to. — schopenhauer1

Hang on...I thought forcing the agenda is identical to intentionally creating a person - you’re saying they are two different events? How are they differentiated?

Hang on...I thought forcing the agenda is identical to intentionally creating a person - you’re saying they are two different events? How are they differentiated? — Possibility

Don't get your question. Forcing the agenda is creating a someone who is procreated. By their procreation, one is creating a state of affairs where that person must comply or die.

Don't get your question. Forcing the agenda is creating a someone who is procreated. By their procreation, one is creating a state of affairs where that person must comply or die. — schopenhauer1

I’m trying to understand. You seemed to be differentiating temporally between the agenda being forced and someone being created. But here you are metaphorically asserting that these events are identical. I’m asking you to be clearer in your relational structure here. Try a different predicate than your vague use of IS.

If that person CANNOT choose other than to comply with the agenda, then they CANNOT choose other than to procreate, etc - or die. But then you’re saying that WE CAN (and should) choose not to procreate (ie. to die), which would follow that they, too, CAN choose not to comply. Which would demonstrate that the agenda is not forced. So... excluding any other awareness of potential... what are you arguing again?

I’m trying to understand. You seemed to be differentiating temporally between the agenda being forced and someone being created. But here you are metaphorically asserting that these events are identical. I’m asking you to be clearer in your relational structure here. Try a different predicate than your vague use of IS. — Possibility

Procreation by de facto definition is forcing an agenda, because entailed in a human life is the agenda of comply or die. However, it is true that prior to this, on the parents part, the parent is choosing that this forced agenda will happen, and thus making a misguided choice, as it will result in the forced agenda actually happening.

If that person CANNOT choose other than to comply with the agenda, then they CANNOT choose other than to procreate, etc - or die. — Possibility

Huh? This has no logical sense. The agenda is survival (in sociopolitical-economic-historical situatedness) and general dissatisfaction overcoming (boredom/discomfort things like that).

But then you’re saying that WE CAN (and should) choose not to procreate (ie. to die) — Possibility

No, not procreating is not "to die", so not sure why you are inserting that.

CAN choose not to comply. Which would demonstrate that the agenda is not forced. So... excluding any other awareness of potential... what are you arguing again? — Possibility

Because I am not defining the agenda as procreation, but survival in a sociopolitical-economic-historical situatdness and general dissatisfaction overcoming.. Call it the game of life if you will. It's a forced agenda because the parent deemed this "way-of-life" as something another person must go through.

Procreation by de facto definition is forcing an agenda, because entailed in a human life is the agenda of comply or die. However, it is true that prior to this, on the parents part, the parent is choosing that this forced agenda will happen, and thus making a misguided choice, as it will result in the forced agenda actually happening. — schopenhauer1

So, by ‘de facto’, you mean that it ISN’T, it’s only perceived to be, and is assumed to be so... by you.

How does anyone know that ‘entailed in a human life is the agenda of comply or die’? How are they expected to piece this information together, if all they’re doing is complying with... hang on, how does the agenda consist of complying with the agenda? That seems circular.

So, prior to actually procreating, or actually ‘forcing an agenda’, non-parents are able to choose based on awareness of... what?

No, not procreating is not "to die", so not sure why you are inserting that. — schopenhauer1

So NOT procreating is complying with the agenda? Aren’t they the only two choices?

Because I am not defining the agenda as procreation, but survival in a sociopolitical-economic-historical situatdness and general dissatisfaction overcoming.. Call it the game of life if you will. It's a forced agenda because the parent deemed this "way-of-life" as something another person must go through. — schopenhauer1

But you ARE defining any and all instances of procreation as ‘forcing the agenda’, and you assume that a parent in so choosing, lives by their belief that the agenda must be complied with. So, is procreation something ‘beyond the agenda’ or are you standing by your assertion that:

There is nothing "beyond the agenda". — schopenhauer1

Scratch all of this because I need to explain this better.. so doing it in next post.

You know what, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that you wanted me to clarify the "agenda" versus the things like "survival/boredom".. Let me clarify as I think I have too closely mixed them in these posts..

The parents are forcing AN AGENDA by having a child, because they feel that the various dictates/dealing withs of life SHOULD BE gone through/experienced by ANOTHER person.

Once born the child must follow the dictates of socioculturalpoliticaleconomic living or die (kill themselves). This is part of the agenda that parent had in mind.. some "way of life" the child would (by necessity of living as a human who must survive through sociocultural means) have to do.

So you would classify living as limiting then?

So you would classify living as limiting then? — Shwah

That's a loaded question because there was no one to limit or not limit previously. Rather, living means X, Y, Z for a person. Don't force X, Y, Z.. Limiting sounds like there was someone prior.

If there's nothing prior then how can you justify the state of living as negative?

If there's nothing prior then how can you justify the state of living as negative? — Shwah

So I have been on this forum for many years (and its previous incarnations).. I have answered this question numerous times.. I am not trying to argue out of bad faith or be an asshole, but before I repeat myself infinitum, can you think of ways I might answer this question or completely drawing blanks?

I mean it's your thread and what you said and it's on-topic so I don't really see how that's an out-of-the-ordinary question for someone to ask. It's not on me if that's the topic.

I would say as a self-evident truth but I'd re-word my point to ask whether it's a self-evident truth that living is limiting compared to suicide or whatever manner you compare it to as greater or even necessary.

I would say as a self-evident truth but I'd re-word my point to ask whether it's a self-evident truth that living is limiting compared to suicide or whatever manner you compare it to as greater or even necessary. — Shwah

No rather, there is nothing prior to compare it to. It is, "Do you (the parent) want to create this situation for the child or don't you". If you procreate, you do. The child is born, the child has to comply with agenda (or commit suicide).

No rather, there is nothing prior to compare it to. It is, "Do you (the parent) want to create this agenda for the child or don't you". If you procreate, you do. The child is born, the child has to comply with agenda (or commit suicide). — schopenhauer1

This is why I call procreation a political move.. You have an agenda that this socio-cultural-political-economic-physical arrangement of society/existence is something another person must go through.

You know what, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that you wanted me to clarify the "agenda" versus the things like "survival/boredom".. Let me clarify as I think I have too closely mixed them in these posts..

The parents are forcing AN AGENDA by having a child, because they feel that the various dictates/dealing withs of life SHOULD BE gone through/experienced by ANOTHER person.

Once born the child must follow the dictates of socioculturalpoliticaleconomic living or die (kill themselves). This is part of the agenda that parent had in mind.. some "way of life" the child would (by necessity of living as a human who must survive through sociocultural means) have to do. — schopenhauer1

I still think you are assuming this ‘agenda’ as a package deal of limited potential, which parents have in mind prior to having a child, and buy into in full recognition of what their child can and cannot do across the course of their life. But that’s a big assumption, given that you’re probably not a parent yourself.

From what I’ve learned over the years, someone often decides to procreate in order to reach beyond their own agenda. They’re not buying into a package deal, but an opportunity to interact beyond the dictates of socio-cultural, political and economic living that appear to constrain their own life. In the past, the extent to which they perceived variability in ‘the agenda’ was dependent on the diversity of their mating partnership - in much the same way as genetics work. These days, we recognise so much variability in these dictates, that parents can almost construct the details of their child’s agenda from scratch.

Procreation, combined with child-rearing, is an attempt to vary the agenda - to provide a more satisfying ‘way of life’ for future individuals. And yes, in the course of varying this agenda, parents impose upon a child certain experiences they consider to be important, and strive to protect them from others they believe to be damaging. Their best intention is to adjust and improve on the agenda they experienced themselves, and possibly even to develop in the child a capacity to be aware of and not be bound by the same agenda that binds them.

This is a primitive and ignorant solution to the problem of how to ‘vary the agenda’, but it does nevertheless make localised improvements in terms of socio-cultural, political and economic living.

I know that there is always a ‘way of life’ to DO. But if we can choose not to procreate, and we can choose the details of our child’s agenda, then we can choose many more variations to the agenda imposed on ourselves. So, while certain aspects of the agenda might appear ‘forced’, they are more accurately chosen for us, albeit in ignorance, isolation and exclusion of certain potentiality.

All this talk about ‘survival’ and ‘boredom’ are event horizons, beyond which we’re unable to observe or measure evidence of individual potential, let alone identity. And yet we can piece together our own experiences and those of others to develop an insight into the structure of potential as it approaches these lower thresholds, as well as what might happen beyond (besides inevitable death).

This is just the lower threshold of potentiality. There is an upper threshold, too. But your aim appears to be to simply negate ALL potentiality - and with it ANY capacity to choose. Hence my question: do you consider this choice whether or not to have a child - given that you believe it to be based on knowledge of an agenda as such - to be part of or beyond the agenda as imposed upon the parent?

hey’re not buying into a package deal, but an opportunity to interact beyond the dictates of socio-cultural, political and economic living that appear to constrain their own life. In the past, the extent to which they perceived variability in ‘the agenda’ was dependent on the diversity of their mating partnership - in much the same way as genetics work. These days, we recognise so much variability in these dictates, that parents can almost construct the details of their child’s agenda from scratch.

Procreation, combined with child-rearing, is an attempt to vary the agenda - to provide a more satisfying ‘way of life’ for future individuals. And yes, in the course of varying this agenda, parents impose upon a child certain experiences they consider to be important, and strive to protect them from others they believe to be damaging. Their best intention is to adjust and improve on the agenda they experienced themselves, and possibly even to develop in the child a capacity to be aware of and not be bound by the same agenda that binds them. — Possibility

So this way of looking at one's progeny as a system one can control and adjust is exactly the kind of thinking that I think is misguided and ultimately, unethical. It is folk genetics taken to the extreme. Children might have some tendencies and dispositions based on genetics, but the child is NOT an extension of the parent in any meaningful way. They are their own person.. every internalization from the environment, every interaction is from a point of view of a "someone" that is NOT the parent, but a separate being. You haven't here, but I am predicting you are going to try to confuse interactions with environment with the idea that no one is a separate contained "person" or identity.. thus trying to weasel your way out of the recognition that the parent has created another being/person with their own thoughts, feelings, sufferings, and pains about the world that is fully felt as their own. It is selfish on the part of the parent to try to play tinkerer.. trying to direct here, and adjust there, and protect hither and think that by just doing the right inputs, they will create a child that will be a self-actualizing/society contributing blah blah blah. It is disrespecting the dignity of the person created for your selfish means to create a being in your likeness (even if that likeness is a dynamic independent blah blah.. it is still trying to direct another being into a direction one had in mind, even if it the parameters of the direction are wider). At the end of the day, the child will encounter the sufferings of the dissatisfactions of living, and the contingent harms that come with the everyday. It is wanting to see another being go through the gauntlet of life, and thus making the political decision for that child that they must comply (or die), as the will of the parent has thus created for them.

People are not systems to try to tinker with to try to find a "more satisfying 'way of life'". That is using the child and thus disrespecting the fact that they will be harmed in the process with no escape but the harmful prospect (to any self-reflecting animal) of death and pain of death. In short, all your excuses are just excuses to do something to another person for one's own edification for seeing another person play the life game on their behalf. The child is not the parent, can never be, and should not be created to be forced into the parent's political agenda (of going through the gauntlet of life). It's controlling, not paying attention to the collateral damage, and disrespecting in general. It's a political agenda forcing others into submission of the dictates of life.. the necessary and contingent forms of suffering. It is nothing more.