I see population control as just a happy outcome from antinatalism, not as the reason. But I see it was a good segue to show that video.

I see population control as just a happy outcome from antinatalism, not as the reason. But I see it was a good segue to show that video — schopenhauer1

All that I can say at the moment is that there's going to a dramatic fall in the global population in (say) another 50 years. Whether this is done the easy way or the hard way is anyone's guess!

What I think I disagree with most in your approach is that you are championing Schopenhauer while not really championing what he actually believed. Yes, the world of appearance is an illusion, and for some very small minority of people (saints), will may become annihilated. However, just us sitting here "realizing this is an illusion" does nothing more than intellectualize this understanding. Just "knowing" we are all Will and this this is an illusion doesn't have any or much force in Schopenhauer's conception. Actually being an ascetic of some saintly variety does. You cannot skip to the end by fiat of some understanding of the oneness of things. That is not how Schopenhauer's idea on ascetic denial of will works. — schopenhauer1

Well, I never claimed to be championing Schopenhauer, or what he actually believed - although, to be fair, I haven’t laid out very clearly where I disagree with him. Schopenhauer, as you say, is an idealist, where I’m more of a structural realist. But I find his philosophy to be a useful discussion space - when we start there, you and I both deviate from it in very different ways.

I’m not saying that simply realising our ‘individual will’ to be an illusion achieves much more on its own than intellectualising this understanding. It is where we go from here that makes the difference, and the ascetic has much to teach us about what we can do, how far we can subvert the agenda. Schopenhauer deliberately falls short of deferring to their wisdom (not ‘proper knowledge’ due to a lack of form), as Kant does with creative genius. The impression is that they are to be respected and feared in equal measure, and isolated from the rest of humanity. I disagree with this. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that abolishing the apparently fundamental form of subject and object does not abolish the world, as Schopenhauer assumes. When we bring the ideas of Kant and Schopenhauer into the 21st century, we’re not obliged to bring their relative ignorance with us. I find it worthwhile to rework these ideas in the context of neuroscience and quantum physics, with due respect to the original. I’m sure there’s a more formal or academic way to go about this, but I will start where I am, and take advice on process as I go.

That beings said, I explicitly showed all my cards as it were in the OP by saying that whilst admiring Schopenhauer's system, I do not particularly agree with his assessment that we can even get out of this suffering situation by even ascetic contemplation. In other words, I don't think a state of peaceful "nothingness" is a thing. "Serenity now" permanently doesn't seem like a thing to me. Rather, it is a nice romanticized idea of what people would like. A permanent state of rest, but not quite dead. Platonic peace, without the becoming of the changing flux of this world. It's a nice notion, I just don't buy it. — schopenhauer1

I agree that a permanent state of peaceful ‘nothingness’ doesn’t seem achievable. This, in my view, is equivalent to death. I think that these notions of nirvana, heaven, even enlightenment and sainthood are romanticised attempts to reify or concretise a preferred fantasy, much like ‘individual will’. I don’t believe there comes a point in ascetic practise when no further effort or attention is required, except in death. In my view, ascetic practise is a process that forces one to align our world as representation with the world as will, abandoning the assumption that this ‘self-knowledge of the will’ is accurate. I believe this can also be achieved by combining ascetic practises such as meditation and self-discipline with honest self-reflection and reasoning. I don’t think it helps to deny EITHER the illusion (which Schop nevertheless prefers) or the will in itself (which Schop fears is essentially an unknowable nothingness), but to recognise that these relations to the world each reflect an inaccuracy that needs addressing. And I think quantum physics is addressing it, in its own way - we just need to find a way to discuss it without confusion or complex mathematics.

There’s a lot more here I find worth discussing, but my available time has been limited. Hopefully that’s enough to start, and not too disjointed. Thanks for sourcing this quote, by the way...

If we count it as living together without exploiting one by burdening them, perhaps it can. I am not optimistic about my project either. All I have is antinatalism as a post-facto action. The whole, "do something while we live part" is not something I am sure will be of much difference. I just proposed something for those who say, "what besides antinatalism as a result?". To be charitable to my own proposal though I can try to outline a few things that can "make a difference" if that really means much in this inescapable situation:

1) Try burdening people with less. Just as we were burdened with the dissatisfaction-overcoming of being born at all, perhaps we can try to not put too many burdens on others.. Too many demands. Too many ultimatums.. Too many musts.. Of course this is never unavoidable with the Game (lest death) so it is only to lessen, it can never be to make go away completely all demands on others, obviously.

2) Try using humor, especially shared cynical humor when doing tasks that are unpleasant.. Like making the unpleasant task known as a shared hatred amongst peers that must deal with the task.

3) Try to tread lightly.. don't be aggressive with others, dominant, etc. This is what got us here in the first place.. people aggressively pursuing their agenda.

4) Shared consolation of suffering.. complain and listen to others complaints. Be sympathetic to them and perhaps feel a sense of community in sharing the burdens and the dissatisfaction-overcoming process. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like a modernized Western rendition of Jainism. Or Quietism. Both are pernicious.

But the problem is having the problem to overcome in the first place. It is this moral disqualification of being presented with problems to overcome in the first place, that I will never let go. You can play pretend all you want that self is an illusion. Pretend at being some Eastern sage. But the reality is it is the individual dealing with these things. You can try to twist the logic in wordplay but that’s it. Whether you say it is an illusion matters not because there is still the first person protagonist getting suffocated. The obvious fact that we have to work together to solve problems doesn’t make the individual self disappear either, nor does it negate the fact that the problem existed the first place to be overcome. This misguided notion is that overcoming itself means is good when in fact it’s just the opposite. It’s people being forced to face overcoming dissatisfaction. — schopenhauer1

The Early Buddhists would probably say that this is where the existentialist insight ends, and falls short.

Some interpret it this way, sure. Doesn’t mean they’re correct, just because they’re ‘insiders’. That’s like assuming Christian fundamentalists understand the bible correctly. — Possibility

For a no-selfer, you sure are hung up on individuals!

It highlights a fundamental disagreement within Buddhism, though - and there is no standard doctrine or interpretation that resolves it, as evident by the Mahāyāna vs Theravāda criticisms back and forth.

Not everyone feels the need to resolve the disagreements between the Buddhist schools.

It comes down to this question of ‘individuality’ that is at the heart of these discussions. Is there more value in attaining individual enlightenment - non-existence - or in reducing suffering across existence overall?

This is a fallacious question to begin with, born out of a wrong understanding of suffering and enlightenment.

Earlier, you said words to the effect that it is possible to conceive of suffering in such a way so that it isn't a problem. I didn't address that then, and I let you go on with your idiosyncratic understanding of the term. I wondered what you'd have to offer.

Not sure what a ‘no-self’ approach to reduction in suffering has to do with bolstering one’s ego.

It allows you to feel good about what you're doing -- whatever it is that you're doing -- and to condemn others for being so stupid not to see things your way.

Nor do I see how ‘individual’ enlightenment through ignorance, isolation and exclusion reduces anything more than the appearance of suffering in relation to the ‘individual’, who then effectively ceases to exist.

It's no surprise you don't see anything more, because from a perspective like yours, there's nothing to see.

By inventing one's own definitions of terms one runs the risk of ending up with an internally inconsistent, incoherent mess of claims.

We are all blind until the moment we attain enlightenment

Really? What is the foundation for this claim of yours?

at which point we are no longer in a position to lead. This is the dilemma we face.

This is probably a dilemma for you, given what you said earlier.

They ignore or belittle anyone who proposes an alternative, and they take great pride in pointing out how every opportunity to change just appears to be more of the same. — Possibility

Because it's usually not an alternative. Like they say, "Different packaging, same shit."

Because there IS NO one-size-fits-all, ‘concrete’ solution. Because everyone’s situation is different, and changes all the time. Because any step-by-step instruction manual for life is going to be relevant to only those whose situation is identical to yours was.

These are not vague, pie-in-the-sky notions, though. They are the basic switches to change any situation, and are most effective when it appears there is nowhere to go, nothing to see, nothing to do. These three switches - ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration - are how we engage with the world as will; NOT the world as representation.

Language describes the world as representation, so any ‘concrete’ examples I attempt to give will just seem to be more of the same. And my efforts to get into the science that supports the metaphysics is just ignored or dismissed as ‘word salad’, so clearly that’s going over your head. I’m actually at a loss as to how else I can present this, — Possibility

No need to be at such a loss.

Your approach is one that gives priority to the attitude with which one approaches things in life.
In short, it's not about what in particular one does (as in whether one watches tv or helps in a soup kitchen), it's about how one thinks about what one is doing, how one frames it cognitively.

but I’m also getting the sense that you’re not really interested in what you claim to be asking in the OP. You don’t really WANT to know ‘what is one to do?’ because you prefer this situation of vocal pessimism - it gives you a sense of purpose to take the moral high ground against existence...

I just don't get the sense that the OP was actually asking anything.

“Don’t complain, just kill yourself” is the message that people are seeming to say. Comply or die. There is no peace even in trying to vocalize the pessimism. That’s all I’m getting. Double disrespect to the player of the game that doesn’t want to be played. It’s all fucked. — schopenhauer1

Well, if they don't have bread to eat, then they should eat cake!

Schopenhauer’s description of reality in itself as the world of ‘will’ helps to bring this underlying logical and qualitative process of any system face-to-face with our quest for an ethical system of intentionality. This is also what the Tao Te Ching aimed to do. Perhaps we can describe this underlying process AS a logical, qualitative system of intentionality, and then develop our complex value structures so that they align with this in relation to our unique situation.

I get that this would seem contrived or backwards to you - the relation of these value structures with being appear to form our self-identity. But this is what Schopenhauer argues - that this consolidation of ‘individual will’ is what got us in this mess in the first place. We tend to think that the value of humanity derives from this capacity to act individually and collectively against the ‘natural’ process of existence, but if there is value in humanity at all, then it is in our capacity to be aware of and participate in it, rather than try to survive it, dominate it, or ‘overcome’ it through procreation, as if it’s a ‘problem’. — Possibility

The Tao Te Ching was written by the upper class, for the upper class. Hence its aloof attitude toward hardship. It's easy to be aloof when someone else does the hard and dirty work.

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that abolishing the apparently fundamental form of subject and object does not abolish the world, as Schopenhauer assumes. When we bring the ideas of Kant and Schopenhauer into the 21st century, we’re not obliged to bring their relative ignorance with us. I find it worthwhile to rework these ideas in the context of neuroscience and quantum physics, with due respect to the original. — Possibility

In that case, you've determined yourself to be a materialist.

I agree that a permanent state of peaceful ‘nothingness’ doesn’t seem achievable. This, in my view, is equivalent to death. I think that these notions of nirvana, heaven, even enlightenment and sainthood are romanticised attempts to reify or concretise a preferred fantasy, much like ‘individual will’.

In their native contexts, those terms have definitions, and they are not what you claim them to be.
For some reason, you use those terms, but insist in your idiosyncratic definitions of them. Why?

I imagine it would have been only a fraction of a fraction of people who didn’t think Columbus or Magellan were insane when they set sail, including their own crew. They didn’t need to deny this optical limitation - they simply recognised that appearances were deceiving. — Possibility

This is extraordinary. Do you have any actual historical support for this interpretation? Such a diary entries, contemporary essays, ...?

Myth of the flat Earth

The perception that we do exist as part of a broader system (not ‘bigger picture’) is not meant to be consoling. It’s meant to open our minds to this potential that has people like you so afraid you’d prefer to not exist or begrudgingly comply than acknowledge it.
/.../
No, I’m trying to explain that Schopenhauer’s pessimism was just a starting point. Philosophy is not about describing a ToE (what appears to be), but about actualising wisdom (how to live). Schop argued that our preference for and actualising of this apparent ‘individual will’ entails suffering, and that because of this we tend to evaluate a living existence as negative overall. But the world as will is neither negative nor positive, and denying this ‘individual will’, even temporarily, enables one to conceptually process the world as will more accurately, even if we’re unable to describe it precisely using language.

And once again, I’m not saying ‘value in participating’ at all, but rather value (if any) in our capacity to be aware of and participate in an otherwise non-conscious process. Stop twisting my words around, it’s getting really old.

Not that I would wish hardship upon you, but I'd love to see how you hold up under pressure. Like when having a nasty toothache and no access to a dentist for quite some time. Or chronic back pain. Poverty. Being of the wrong skin color.

Because as things stand, you've consistently sounded like someone who is relatively well off or at least like someone who is trying to sound like someone who is relatively well off. You exude that "Let them eat cake!" attitude.

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that abolishing the apparently fundamental form of subject and object does not abolish the world, as Schopenhauer assumes. — Possibility

This is the problem with mixing scientific concepts.. So let's say there is a concept of relativism in physics or chance in quantum mechanics... This does not entail anything about a broader philosophical principle by necessity. One has to bolster this idea with several steps tying that concept with a metaphysical point, which is trickier than making up neologisms. Rather, Kant's "Copernican Revolution", however you think it, can be applied to modern physics as well. That is to say, whatever it is "out there", it can be considered simply the cognitive apparatus of the mind making it seem that way. The thing-in-itself being as it were, a speculative claim of the "out there", which as in Schopenhauer, can be gradations of this "something" all the way down (Will in Schopenhauer's case).

This, in my view, is equivalent to death. — Possibility

So far, so good.

I think that these notions of nirvana, heaven, even enlightenment and sainthood are romanticised attempts to reify or concretise a preferred fantasy, much like ‘individual will’. — Possibility

Except for "much like 'individual will' I agree with this".

I don’t believe there comes a point in ascetic practise when no further effort or attention is required, except in death. In my view, ascetic practise is a process that forces one to align our world as representation with the world as will, abandoning the assumption that this ‘self-knowledge of the will’ is accurate. I believe this can also be achieved by combining ascetic practises such as meditation and self-discipline with honest self-reflection and reasoning. I don’t think it helps to deny EITHER the illusion (which Schop nevertheless prefers) or the will in itself (which Schop fears is essentially an unknowable nothingness), but to recognise that these relations to the world each reflect an inaccuracy that needs addressing. And I think quantum physics is addressing it, in its own way - we just need to find a way to discuss it without confusion or complex mathematics.

There’s a lot more here I find worth discussing, but my available time has been limited. Hopefully that’s enough to start, and not too disjointed. Thanks for sourcing this quote, by the way... — Possibility

This seems very Tao, as I believe @baker has also picked up on. There is some "way" (the Will), and we are to align to it through attitude towards how we get on in the world. This approach is simply another attempt at Natural Reason (pace the Stoics). There is a "best way" about things that we tap into and align with using our Reason. This, of course, I believe to wrong thinking. There is nothing to align to in the universe. Even if there were, we simply have a transcendental form of something that we must comply or die to. Instead of socio-economic realities, its something else. And as @baker brought up, by ignoring the realities of having to survive, in some socioeconomic way, it is ignoring what is really the case, and so falls short of much at all, except for a ruling class who can afford to tune in, turn on, and drop out..(of course "leading people" in whatever way as well in this alternative way of being somehow).

That beings said, I explicitly showed all my cards as it were in the OP by saying that whilst admiring Schopenhauer's system, I do not particularly agree with his assessment that we can even get out of this suffering situation by even ascetic contemplation. In other words, I don't think a state of peaceful "nothingness" is a thing. "Serenity now" permanently doesn't seem like a thing to me. Rather, it is a nice romanticized idea of what people would like. A permanent state of rest, but not quite dead. Platonic peace, without the becoming of the changing flux of this world. It's a nice notion, I just don't buy it. — schopenhauer1

When asceticism is presented in such an ascetic (eh!) manner, it's no wonder it doesn't come across as promising.

Why not inform oneself about it some more, as opposed to sticking to some vague, superficial notions of it?

Because it's usually not an alternative. Like they say, "Different packaging, same shit." — baker

Yep.

You exude that "Let them eat cake!" attitude. — baker

Yep. I compare it to Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In".

When asceticism is presented in such an ascetic (eh!) manner, it's no wonder it doesn't come across as promising.

Why not inform oneself about it some more, as opposed to sticking to some vague, superficial notions of it? — baker

I have read it, and I am not convinced of such a state. I just don't buy it. I've read about ego-death, etc. It entails a certain metaphysics as well, that I also don't buy.

Do I believe that meditation can "calm the mind" and "clear the mind", "calm the body" etc. I can understand this notion of trying to be "still" and not letting the "monkey brain" go in different directions, or try to assign "self" to thought. But I just see it as a bunch of mental exercises at that point.

This is the problem with mixing scientific concepts. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

A quick search gave this:
Examples of theorems misapplied to non-mathematical contexts

The SEP in the entry on Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems gives some examples of how they are sometimes misunderstood/misapplied.

I have read it, and I am not convinced of such a state. I just don't buy it. I've read about ego-death, etc. — schopenhauer1

What in particular did you read?

Nice. :up:

So instead of playing this game, why don't you give me some references, and we can see if it is the conception I have from what I know already, and we can reconvene.

Like I've been saying all along: Early Buddhism, the Pali Canon.

Ok, so I know you would like me to imbibe from the "TRUTH" of Buddhism en totale, because (like hipsters say), "I just won't get it" otherwise.. but what is the most important parts of the Pali Canon would you like me to research. I know I know, in order to really "KNOW" Buddhism, I am to become a scholar... but we are on an internet forum. I cannot expect for example, to debate someone on here by saying, "Just read WWR and all Scholarship on Schopenhauer" because that is not feasible and unfair in this platform. As a meta-analysis of this dialogue, how do you want me to proceed?

In other words, if there were a few most important concepts, what would you like me to understand from it?

This sounds like a modernized Western rendition of Jainism. Or Quietism. Both are pernicious. — baker

What is pernicious about it?

Ah, baker, welcome back to the discussion. I can always count on you to take my statements completely out of context.

Not sure what a ‘no-self’ approach to reduction in suffering has to do with bolstering one’s ego.

It allows you to feel good about what you're doing -- whatever it is that you're doing -- and to condemn others for being so stupid not to see things your way. — baker

Allow who to feel good?

Your approach is one that gives priority to the attitude with which one approaches things in life.
In short, it's not about what in particular one does (as in whether one watches tv or helps in a soup kitchen), it's about how one thinks about what one is doing, how one frames it cognitively. — baker

No, not at all. Forget Schop1’s misleading interpretations. My approach is about how one determines and initiates action - including determined inaction - from perceived potential.

The Tao Te Ching was written by the upper class, for the upper class. Hence its aloof attitude toward hardship. It's easy to be aloof when someone else does the hard and dirty work. — baker

No, the Tao Te Ching was translated into English by the upper class, for the upper class.

In that case, you've determined yourself to be a materialist. — baker

No, I’ve already said that my position is more along the lines of structural realism.

“I agree that a permanent state of peaceful ‘nothingness’ doesn’t seem achievable. This, in my view, is equivalent to death. I think that these notions of nirvana, heaven, even enlightenment and sainthood are romanticised attempts to reify or concretise a preferred fantasy, much like ‘individual will’.”

In their native contexts, those terms have definitions, and they are not what you claim them to be.
For some reason, you use those terms, but insist in your idiosyncratic definitions of them. Why? — baker

I’m not using them in their native contexts, and I’m not insisting on any particular definition - you are, by resisting a broader understanding of what they’re referring to.

This is extraordinary. Do you have any actual historical support for this interpretation? Such a diary entries, contemporary essays, ...? — baker

This Wikipedia article only addresses the claim that most scholars had determined a flat earth cosmology. Given scholars and educated people were a fraction of a fraction, it doesn’t refute what I’m saying here. Try this one.

Not that I would wish hardship upon you, but I'd love to see how you hold up under pressure. Like when having a nasty toothache and no access to a dentist for quite some time. Or chronic back pain. Poverty. Being of the wrong skin color.

Because as things stand, you've consistently sounded like someone who is relatively well off or at least like someone who is trying to sound like someone who is relatively well off. You exude that "Let them eat cake!" attitude. — baker

You’re making assumptions here based on what you’d prefer me to be, to support your argument and dismiss my contributions, just as you dismiss the TTC under the guise of classism. But there is no evidence in my writing that suggests this, only your affected interpretation. I’m aware of how I hold up under pressure, what my weaknesses and strengths are - I don’t need to prove that to you with tales of woe. Your assumption that I must not understand what it’s like to really suffer is completely unfounded, particularly given the general consensus here that everyone who exists suffers. You’re grasping at straws...

This is the problem with mixing scientific concepts.. So let's say there is a concept of relativism in physics or chance in quantum mechanics... This does not entail anything about a broader philosophical principle by necessity. One has to bolster this idea with several steps tying that concept with a metaphysical point, which is trickier than making up neologisms. Rather, Kant's "Copernican Revolution", however you think it, can be applied to modern physics as well. That is to say, whatever it is "out there", it can be considered simply the cognitive apparatus of the mind making it seem that way. The thing-in-itself being as it were, a speculative claim of the "out there", which as in Schopenhauer, can be gradations of this "something" all the way down (Will in Schopenhauer's case). — schopenhauer1

Not by necessity, of course not. I don’t dispute any of this - hence structural realism.

This seems very Tao, as I believe baker has also picked up on. There is some "way" (the Will), and we are to align to it through attitude towards how we get on in the world. This approach is simply another attempt at Natural Reason (pace the Stoics). There is a "best way" about things that we tap into and align with using our Reason. This, of course, I believe to wrong thinking. There is nothing to align to in the universe. Even if there were, we simply have a transcendental form of something that we must comply or die to. Instead of socio-economic realities, its something else. And as @baker brought up, by ignoring the realities of having to survive, in some socioeconomic way, it is ignoring what is really the case, and so falls short of much at all, except for a ruling class who can afford to tune in, turn on, and drop out..(of course "leading people" in whatever way as well in this alternative way of being somehow). — schopenhauer1

Tao does not refer to a ‘best way’ of being at all - that, I believe, is wrong thinking. The Tao refers to a logical and qualitative relational structure to reality, which we distort according to this affected ‘self-knowledge of the will’ that we believe is better... for ourselves, at least, regardless of its accuracy. It’s not about aligning through attitude, but through reasoning, prior to even determining any variation of being, and recognising affect as indicative of limited effort and attention over time. According to neuroscience, the organism doesn’t act on concepts, but on affect, as a predictive distribution of attention and effort over time. Concepts help us to share our distorted self-knowledge of the will through language, and our faculties of reason help us to develop a logical and qualitative relational structure of reality without these affected distortions, which improves the accuracy with which we distribute what attention and effort we have available in our limited being (affect), thereby reducing prediction error, ie. suffering. There is no ruling or leading to be done from the TTC, unlike religious texts or doctrine - the structure is all there in the text; attention, effort and time are your own.

You keep trying to shoehorn what I say into the agenda of ‘having to survive’ - a product of this misguided self-knowledge of the will. You can’t seem to even bring yourself to think beyond this, even as a possibility. It’s not about ignoring what appears to be the case (from a human perspective), but about trying to understand it in a broader context of reason, of which the human condition is a limited and affected structure. I get that what I’m proposing is not a set of goals or things to do that will somehow make life easier to survive. I never claimed this was the case, and I’m surprised you still hold to the irrational belief that there should be something to this effect, simply because that’s what you’d prefer.

prediction error, ie. suffering — Possibility

:up:

We talked about margin of error!

So, suffering is, at the end of the day, an error!

Is that why we dislike suffering so much? Nobody likes making mistakes, especially silly mistakes?

There's more but I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment! Maybe you can. Give it a go, will ya?

Tao does not refer to a ‘best way’ of being at all - that, I believe, is wrong thinking. The Tao refers to a logical and qualitative relational structure to reality, which we distort according to this affected ‘self-knowledge of the will’ that we believe is better... — Possibility

I honestly hate how Eastern ways of thinking has bled into New Age Western thinking.. It's always about not saying something correctly, and then when the New Ager explains it, it becomes exactly what you said but stated in a slightly different way.. Here is an example:

Tao does not refer to a ‘best way’ of being at all - that, I believe, is wrong thinking. — Possibility

Premise: Tao does not refer to a "best way of being at all".. Then right after...
Premise contradicted:

The Tao refers to a logical and qualitative relational structure to reality, which we distort according to this affected ‘self-knowledge of the will’ that we believe is better... for ourselves, at least, regardless of its accuracy — Possibility

So instead of just admitting "the better way" in the positive form, you simply state that not living in the Tao is the distorted way. It's the same thing but stated in its negative form!

Concepts help us to share our distorted self-knowledge of the will through language, and our faculties of reason help us to develop a logical and qualitative relational structure of reality without these affected distortions, which improves the accuracy with which we distribute what attention and effort we have available in our limited being (affect), thereby reducing prediction error, ie. suffering. There is no ruling or leading to be done from the TTC, unlike religious texts or doctrine - the structure is all there in the text; attention, effort and time are your own. — Possibility

Sure, but if you are let's say suffocating, your affect is immediately about your physical suffocation.. Enlightened or not! Then all the mental techniques to keep mind off.. maybe.

You keep trying to shoehorn what I say into the agenda of ‘having to survive’ - a product of this misguided self-knowledge of the will. You can’t seem to even bring yourself to think beyond this, even as a possibility. It’s not about ignoring what appears to be the case (from a human perspective), but about trying to understand it in a broader context of reason, of which the human condition is a limited and affected structure. I get that what I’m proposing is not a set of goals or things to do that will somehow make life easier to survive. I never claimed this was the case, and I’m surprised you still hold to the irrational belief that there should be something to this effect, simply because that’s what you’d prefer. — Possibility

Well, once we learn that we are just here to be useful workers being de facto the situation, and survival for ourselves de facto.. It is comply or die all around.. You can't go against it.. You can only say word salads about structures and collaborating. This a) Isn't seeing anything of the socioeconomic superstructure, historical contingency of our situation, b) It isn't doing anything about it.. It's all better ways to comply.. changing your "attitude" or as you like to complicate it "affect".. and it's all ways to better cope with complying. More HR spin.

Besides not buying the notion of this "escape hatch" of asceticism (or even aesthetic contemplation for that matter), I think there is the very real of having to survive at all. I am not doubling down on the illusion, but rather acknowldging the realities of how the human condition works.. That is to say, we are willful beings for sure, but that we are also situated in a socioeconomic context, and inextricably tied to our individual selves with this society. HOWEVER, this does not signify anything more than precisely that.. We are individual SELVES that INTERACT in a historically-contingent, socioeconomic-political SETTING. That is it... There is no higher way-of-being of "connection, collaboration, and awareness" one must do for a better of way of life.. Rather, one must be involved in the things described by Schopenhauer (the goals and hardships related to survival, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in general), to or turn against it and die. He added an extra category of "turn against it and be an ascetic", and that is the part I deny is a thing.

So, what to do? There is nothing to do except, as you state, "vocal pessimism". To me, that can mean communally recognizing the situation we are all in, and easing the suffering as a group in the context of this recognition. Like a soldier going on a suicide mission, who knows their fate, we the living, should understand what is going on here, and cope with it through cynical/existential humor, lowering of aggression and expectations, resignation in our fate, and the rest. It is understanding that we simply have to play this game out until we are dead. — schopenhauer1

I’m not claiming any ‘higher way of being’, nor a ‘better way of life’. I’m simply describing an alternative to vocal pessimism. We can acknowledge how the human condition works without referring to any particular way of living as forced or inescapable. Survival is not a realistic goal. Discomfort and dissatisfaction are variable conditions in which we come to understand human capacity - they’re not necessarily hardships to be avoided.

We can communally recognise the situation and ease suffering collectively in a number of ways (including, but by no means limited to, antinatalism), without cynicism or resignation. A soldier in a suicide mission, who knows their fate but refuses to acknowledge their part in it (‘just following orders’), will carry on as you describe. A soldier who accepts their suicide mission makes what they can of their limited effort and attention over time - without wasting it on vocal pessimism - recognising that what they have left in them is no longer for themselves but to give freely to others as they see fit within the context. They can attack their enemies or make peace with them, they can save, improve or destroy the lives of those around them. These apparent ‘goals and hardships related to survival, discomfort and dissatisfaction’ stripped away at this point, their lives are no longer forced into a particular way of being.

Discomfort and dissatisfaction are variable conditions in which we come to understand human capacity - they’re not necessarily hardships to be avoided. — Possibility

So a "Yay" for comply. Got it.

them is no longer for themselves but to give freely to others as they see fit within the context. — Possibility

Funny you mention "context" and provide none of it, thus making the statement hollow and meaningless unless contextualized.

They can attack their enemies or make peace with them, they can save, improve or destroy the lives of those around them. — Possibility

Comply with a nicer look.

These apparent ‘goals and hardships related to survival, discomfort and dissatisfaction’ stripped away at this point, their lives are no longer forced into a particular way of being. — Possibility

There is no stripping away, lest death. Give me one example of someone "stripping away" and not being dead.

So instead of just admitting "the better way" in the positive form, you simply state that not living in the Tao is the distorted way. It's the same thing but stated in its negative form! — schopenhauer1

This is not about better or worse, positive or negative - these are value structures. A distortion is about accuracy of information. We will always consider our self-knowledge of the will to be better, relative to the self as we perceive it. There’s no point in arguing against this. But we also know that this self-knowledge of the will is an illusion, like the distorted appearance of a stick in a glass of water. So it’s a choice of what appears better for our perceived ‘self’ at this juncture, or what is more accurate overall.

Sure, but if you are let's say suffocating, your affect is immediately about your physical suffocation.. Enlightened or not! Then all the mental techniques to keep mind off.. maybe. — schopenhauer1

Maybe, it depends on your situation. Enlightenment aside, I know people who have ‘accidentally’ asphyxiated themselves in pursuit of pleasure/escapism, so I would dispute this. The mind is much more variable than I think Schopenhauer gave us credit for. This is more apparent in the last few decades at least.

It is comply or die all around.. You can't go against it.. You can only say word salads about structures and collaborating. This a) Isn't seeing anything of the socioeconomic superstructure, historical contingency of our situation, b) It isn't doing anything about it.. It's all better ways to comply.. changing your "attitude" or as you like to complicate it "affect".. and it's all ways to better cope with complying. — schopenhauer1

...and we’re back to doubling down on the illusion. Never mind.

We talked about margin of error!

So, suffering is, at the end of the day, an error!

Is that why we dislike suffering so much? Nobody likes making mistakes, especially silly mistakes?

There's more but I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment! Maybe you can. Give it a go, will ya? — Agent Smith

Prediction error feeds back to us as pain, humiliation/humility and loss/lack in our relation to the world. It’s just an indication that something needed to be different in how we conceptualised the situation and/or in how we structured our being in relation - ie. attention and effort over time.

But this is how we learn. Babies and children experience prediction error almost all the time. Each error we make comes with information, which enables us to make adjustments in very the next moment, or the next time we’re in a similar situation. As we pay attention to a ball hurtling towards us, we can make hundreds of judgements on speed and direction, as well as small adjustments to our body, including heart rate, visual focus, hands and feet position in order to eventually catch it. If we’re not paying attention, or we haven’t tried to catch a ball before, it could hit us on the head before we determine the correct position. The more information we already have about this type of situation, and the more attention, effort and time we’re able to devote to it, the less prediction error. The more mistakes we make, the more accurate our brain gets at predicting.

But the older we get, the less prediction error we experience, and the less we appreciate those experiences when they do occur. We buy into the idea that as adults we shouldn’t make mistakes, and so we avoid putting ourselves at that risk. And eventually, the body and the brain stop learning.

Thanks for the exposition. It hits quite close to home for me, c'est la vie!

Suffering is a(n) (prediction) error! When plans go awry, that's precisely when hearts start to ache!

I wish I could say more, but that's all my brain can offer at the moment. G'day and keep posting. I'll be watching you! :eyes:

and we’re back to doubling down on the illusion. Never mind. — Possibility

Yet you say stuff like this:

The more information we already have about this type of situation, and the more attention, effort and time we’re able to devote to it, the less prediction error. The more mistakes we make, the more accurate our brain gets at predicting. — Possibility

Mine as well come from an HR seminar of how to be a better worker. And this truly would be doubling down on the game. Not only accepting it, but trying to get better at it over time so as to learn and grow. And now we are back at very common notions of self-actualization like Maslow or any of the others. I got some minutia to monger.

Everything is connected to Wonka's "loving game". Communes, monasteries, rose-tinted ideas of collaboration, etc. There is no escape. You're in for good (until you are not).