Assent is used here to mean that you accept something as likely true. — moo

That's what I thought you meant. So, the handshake is not an agreement to undertake a common enterprise or or end a conflict.

Someone tells you that there had been a rape. You have no reason from past experience to doubt that this person tells the truth as he knows it. So, you ask, "How do you know?" Depending on his answer, you conclude that it probably is true; you believe him provisionally, pending more information. A lowest threshold of assent has been reached, correct?

Why would you then shake hands? Wouldn't you be more likely to question further, as to who the victim and perpetrator were, what has been done about it, and so forth? The handshake is unnecessary and, to my taste, inappropriate.

(A) what main aspect/s of the 60's show would you change/update? — 180 Proof

Minute 1 of day 1, get rid of those piles of klunky hardware they substituted for computers. Even STNG still has half a dozen big tablet things to contain the amount of information a 300-year-old cellphone wouldn't even notice.
I'd certainly put the female characters in the same uniforms as the men wear and either give them all similar, practical haircuts or else show more versatility in all the crew's personal appearance - I lean toward the former. I'd like to see coherent, ready-for-action crew.
Seatbelts and lanyards. It's indecent how those poor people are made to bounce around the cabin every time they hit a space-pocket or enemy shell, and lose their weapons, tricorders or essential weapon at the first clumsy move. (Actually, I often wonder why so many characters in all kinds of drama keep dropping their phones down sewer grates, when all you need is a cord like boyscouts understood in 1908)
And for heaven's sake, I'd drop the attitude of "here's a planet we know nothing about. Let's just beam down there with no protective gear!" Space suits mandatory for initial survey!

I'd want the aliens to be a lot less obviously human. There are excellent makeup artists and animators out there, waiting for a chance to be creative. I appreciate that actors come in a limited range of sizes and shapes, and that characters need to fit in the set, but even within those constraints, their bodies, apparel and accoutrements could be more varied.
I can accept a universal translator - else scripts would be painfully awkward - but it should take a few samples and several minutes to turn unknown alien speech into English vernacular.

I also quite liked the novel serialization aspect of DS9 and Babylon 5. It's a good idea to have thematic lines and chronology and character development from which good writers can make engaging sub-plots for each episode.

(B) what you would keep from the original to retain its identifiably Star Trek style rather than feeling like another generic space opera cashing-in on the franchise brand with all that glittering s/fx, pointless techobabble & Mos Eisley "aliens"? — 180 Proof

I'm quite happy with the non-monetarist economy of Earth, but would need some kind of standard trading medium with other cultures. (Voyager bartered, and that's acceptable, but they shouldn't have had to improvise.)

I'd keep Star Fleet and maybe even the Prime Directive - though I'd either have to make it more flexible (twenty-seven pages of exceptions and special circumstances) or have the officers agree to consider one another's reasons for breaking it before going all legalese on his ass.
I'd keep the Federation, of course.

I'd keep the generally relaxed an homey atmosphere of the interiors: If people are going to live aboard for five years, they should not have to look at blue-grey brushed steel surfaces.

And for sure I'd keep the time travel. Those were some of the most fun episodes of all four series.

The differences between King Lear and Macbeth involve different kinds of ignorance. — Paine

Also a different kind of arrogance and a different kind of divine retribution.
There is a long tradition in European literature of fathers demanding to know which daughter (never sons) loved them best. Salt figures in most of them. So does a version of Cinderella. That's almost certainly the germ of S's idea. However, Lear's older daughters are exceptionally treacherous, which is missing from the folk takes, and the father's belated realization is usually at a happy resolution, not a mass death scene. Shakespeare went overboard on that one: you don't get a clear message, since everyone seems to be insane.

Macbeth is far more straightforward and plausible. He was due for a royal honour and would have settled for a slow rise at court, but his wife's ambition outstripped his. Pricked in the ego, he goes ahead and commits the assassination. He spends the rest of the play regretting it and trying to cover it up. The spooky bits - ghosts and witches and ambiguous prophecy - are added for crowd appeal (a popular, entertaining way to introduce the moral - I bet they ate up the blasted heath! my classmates did, at 18, which was probably the median age of Shakespeare's audience ).

ugh! wallotext - edit

Certainly they do. But the playwrights were there first, before psychiatry was invented and before the father confessor became a spiritual advisor or pastor. I think the early Greek playwrights leaned heavily on their contemporary philosophers, who were still deeply involved with human nature, social relations and ethics. They gave psychology its vocabulary, its reference-points and a good deal of its dream imagery.

Then philosopher kind of wandered into theological territory. That was okay for the Greeks to do, since their gods were characters in everyday life, but the Renaissance to Industrial Revolution Europeans could not, because their one big God had been moved far up and out of machina range. I think the 20th+ century ones are coming back into human range... it's the physicists that have gone off to Neverland. You can only trust poets and fiction writers to stay close to the beating heart.

Shakespeare's trajedies(and comedies) have probably had such a cultural influence in thinking, making him(or Francis Bacon or whoever wrote the plays) a significant philosopher as well as playwright. — Jack Cummins

Don't forget psychologist. As were the Greek playwrights.

So, which is it? Assent (acceptance), agreement (accord) or consent (permission)?

I had to take Shakespeare in high school, a play of appropriate difficulty to each year, from Julius Caesar to King Lear. I didn't care for Lear - over-the-top melodrama, besides, the silly wanker was asking for it - but loved Macbeth, very possibly because I had an English teacher that year who knew how to preform Shakespeare.

Those dramas were mass entertainment in their time. The audience had a great deal more to fear in terms of personal misfortune than we do today. They had a greater need to externalize and distance themselves from the actual threat of death, maiming, imprisonment and madness. So these characters on the stage would bear the ill fortune and violence that the audience feared and, once every fortnight or so, carry them off into the night like the scapegoat.

Our violent melodramas are impersonal. We don't really expect a serial killer to abduct us or a mad terrorist to hijack the bus we're on - these are remote possibilities. But they take our minds off the petty, far more plausible anxieties that haunt us all the time. We are distracted from little, niggling real fears and guilts by big imaginary evil deeds and life-and-death struggles. But an evening once or twice a month is insufficient distraction; it has to be repeated frequently, in constantly increasing intensity, to hold our attention. Even so, it doesn't; we're easily distracted from our distractions.

And indeed researchers have found evidence that over the past couple of decades, people's attention spans have shrunk considerably.

This is true of everything pleasurable. The taste of sweets is pleasant; so we have sugar in everything, develop a higher tolerance and need salt to enhance it, then more sugar. It's no longer a craving; it's an addiction, which can never be satisfied.

I'm not a handsy person, either, though I would not scorn someone's hand if offered in good faith.

Lowest level of assent calls for a curt nod.
Physical contact begins at mutual esteem : I acknowledge this person as my equal and ally or honourable rival.
If shaking on an agreement, there is usually an understanding of intent: a promise, a contract, a compact or partnership.

Of course, it's fashionable now not only to squeeze every stranger's hand, but to hug and kiss scant acquaintances, but I don't subscribe to that. Maybe Covid put a damper on that trend?

They blur into the background of the stimuli of life experiences. — Jack Cummins

A larger problem for young people is that life experience blurs into, is confused with and sometimes subsumed by virtual, electronic life. It's not a problem for old people like me: I don't have a cell-phone or any device with earbuds, don't carry a tablet. My computer is here, stays here; I can stand up and leave it. The tv, with its dedicated computer, is over there, with a blank screen until I choose something to watch. There is never music in this house, unless we tune in to a concert or put a cd in the player. Ws live and work in this house; don't have to go anywhere except appointments and grocery shopping. But wherever I do go, there is unchosen, unwanted, poor quality background noise, and I see people immersed in their tiny electronic worlds.

The idea of 'restful, contemplative art' is so different from what is considered as entertainment; which may be more about distraction. — Jack Cummins

That has always been the function of public entertainment. When we discuss Greek tragedy or epic poetry, we sometimes forget that it was big business in its day, made to attract the same crowds that flocked to wrestling matches and chariot races. Maybe a lot of Greek theater was schlock, just like modern movies - but the schlock falls out of memory; only the cream survives.

We need the more elevated forms of art once in a while, when we take the time to walk through an art gallery or read a poem or attend a classical concert.
But most people, most of the time, don't want to reflect and contemplate; we just need distractions. Mass entertainment provides a good laugh or cry or rant to blow off emotional steam.
The problem today is that there is simply too much of it. You don't have to seek out the distraction most suited to your mood; distractions pursue and harass you everywhere; jarring graphic images and bad music are inescapable.

like boxing glove to the solar plexus

religious fervor is in decline in the US and the western world. So, it is not only about me, you, and X person. It looks like a western trend of abandoning religions — Eros1982

Religious institutions no longer supply people with the comfort and reassurance they once did. I should say, most don't, though some still provide a warm community where people find support in their times of crisis. But the big, highly organized, rich churches have become both impersonal in atmosphere and outdated in their doctrine.
Instead, troubled people take their fears to a psychologist, or drown them in alcohol.

(I can't remember any short, mean stories?) — Amity

They're forgettable enough. I've also ventured into tragic/pathetic territory, but I don't find it hospitable. I much prefer optimistic fare.

Of course, times have changed and what art satisfies is so variable. — Jack Cummins

I wasn't talking about satisfaction, but specifically about the cathartic effect of melodrama and tragedy. Our entertainments don't just come in the form of written literature, pictorial rendering and theater, but also, and overwhelmingly, in graphic, immersive cinema and interactive virtual presentations. There is so much of it all around us, all the time, that there is no time for reflection, for questioning the quality or value of art - though we may question whether many of the productions qualify as art, they are certainly experienced by the audience. There is no time to accumulate any backlog of guilt, sorrow, resentment, aggression: it's purged instantly, maybe before we can even feel it.
The trick is to escape from all that catharsis, into restful, contemplative, replenishing art.

How have you found your story-telling affected? — Amity

I shall rudely borrow this question for a moment, because it bears directly on my response above.
I write positive stories for the most part. I've been accused of not having enough conflict or tension or action. It's true. I prefer to present a less frantic, more thoughtful alternative.
(The odd little foray into the sardonic notwithstanding. I guess the short, mean stories are my personal catharsis.)

The author looks at Aristotle's ideas, especially catharsis, Freud's thinking about 'the pleasure principle', as well as Nietzsche's understanding of the dark side of human nature. — Jack Cummins

One problem, these guys are way out of date. There was once tragic theater and poetry to purge the baser emotions of the highly refined audience. The plebes went to public executions and bull-baiting.

Now, entertainments of the most cathartic nature are available without stint for the price of one's server fee. More cheaply still, we can watch the evening news broadcast or borrow any amount of horror from the library.

If we, as a culture, were actually cleansed and purified by these spectacles, we'd all be saints by now.

Another thing about physical books: they don't need to be plugged in or recharged; they keep working when the power is cut off by weather, malfunction or sabotage. (You should lay in some candles, though.)

The proposition, from Seneca and Theophrastus and through St. Jerome, being that the would-be philosopher – or theologian – must devote himself to meditation and the study of books. In context, a quote from Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius (now on my reading list):
“To interrupt philosophy amounts to not being a philosopher, for from the very moment of the interruption philosophy vanishes.... It is necessary therefore to resist other occupations. Rather than multiply them, fly them” — tim wood

That's nice if you have servants, novices (or a compliant wife) to take care of your physical needs, and then you need not occupy yourself with any other activity, just sit in your tower, think absurdities and wait to be waited on.
Poor old Abelard didn't have a whole lot of choice in the matter.

I'll tell you one thing about books as a source of information: They don't have six pop-up ads on every page you're trying to read.
You can also have an internal dialogue with the author - it doesn't matter that he can't hear you; your thought process is still moving forward, without unwelcome interruptions or divergences.

The meaning may have been fixed by the original author. If he was writing about cement foundations, one should hope so. Some texts are effective only when their meaning is fixed and unambiguous. Eg a Stop sign.
Sometimes the author meant to send a specific message, and was unintentionally ambiguous enough in his wording to leave it open to different interpretations. Eg. the US constitution.
More widely open if it was written a thousand years ago in a different language and culture, and even more if the reader has access to other sources of that same message.
Sometimes the author intends such ambiguity, so that thoughtful reader is forced to carry on a dialogue with the text and find more than one way to understand it.

Finally, what's wrong with moving forward while having access to many thousands of rear-view mirrors?

All of which have more to do with 'entertainment' than death itself. — Tom Storm

All entertainment is very much about its content. Like gladiatorial contests, blood sacrifice, public execution, bullfights, etc. Humans have always been fascinated as well as frightened by death. The entertainment aspect of it is individually cathartic, but the greater social function of it is to get the upper hand on death, to tame it and control it. Just as we brought the forces of nature under control by domesticating them as humanized gods.

We try not to think about it. — Tom Storm

And yet we revel in the cultural renderings of it: expensive funerals, Hallowe'en, silly movies and tv serials about undertakers, zombies, etc; scary movies about war, serial killers and random violent events. I think we try to think about it as something historical or fictional - distant from ourselves.

What is your opinion on these things? Am I right in believing that in the contemporary world our brains are less tuned towards the fear of death? — Eros1982

Given that the majority of people still subscribe to religions with a promise of continuity - afterlife or rebirth - I can't see the brain having changed.
There is also a huge range of world-views, standards of living and imminent perils across the world; so various populations experience the prospect of death very differently.
Yes, to a large extent prosperous western populations have insulated themselves from the specter of death. They have many safeguards and remedies to prolong life, and then, when it does inevitably end, availing themselves of sanitary, impersonal methods of disposal for the remains: they can celebrate the dead grandfather with solemn rituals but without ever having to touch his cold blue limbs.
Then, too, we have some convenient escape routes, via drugs and medical intervention, so that we don't have to suffer though the final illness or injury. That helps make dying less terrifying.

However, these palliatives and protections are not available to everyone even the wealthiest countries - and certainly not to the majority of the human race, who live in poverty and under constant threat from other people, nature and time.

f it's not philosophy to you ...fine.
Maybe we are lucky or unlucky and transfers play a part. — Mark Nyquist

Uh-huh.

So perspectives will follow the group you are in.
Most of us are both Payers out and Benifitiaries. — Mark Nyquist

What is it you wanted to discuss?

You never know what you're paying for with taxes. You are told some things; you see some effects of government spending, but you can never find out how much of the money is sunk into covert operations, how much is embezzled, how much is written off on expense accounts, how much is paid out in bribes and kick-backs.

I still have not been able to discover what it is you wanted to discuss.

Arbitrary Transfers come in many forms but are identified by a transfer of funds or resource with no benefits in return. — Mark Nyquist

Such as the defence budget? And, in fact, all funding for government agencies.

Star Trek is absurd insofar as many of the scenarios seem impossible to overcome and survival appears to be a matter or pure luck. — Nils Loc

Especially given that any passing alien can just take over control of their ship. That's got to be the least secure computer system in the universe!

I wonder how it came to be that every species knows, or can figure out in two minutes, just how to operate the machines of every other species - including ones that have been dead 1000 years and all the labels are in an unknown language.

It's a big bag.
I'm not opposed to support for the arts, endowments for museums, libraries and research, scholarships, charitable donations, sponsorship of public broadcasting, trust funds for veteran rehabilitation, addiction treatments, environmental initiatives, etc.
It all depends on the why and to whom for what purpose, donnit?

What my point is, if you use Arbitrary Transfers as a tool to understand the economy you will see things you missed before. — Mark Nyquist

Oh, did you think we were all unaware of profit gouging, tax dodges and loopholes?
Even were that so, it still wouldn't be a philosophical question.

So in the US economy the organizations that can capture the most arbitrary transfer dollars will do the best. — Mark Nyquist

Do the best... what?

It might be obvious but profits tend to accumulate in certain sectors of the economy and Arbitrary Transfers can drive profitability. — Mark Nyquist

Especially as in your second example: an extra markup beyond overhead and handling.
But then, so can lots of other factors.
Still don't see the connection to productivity or philosophy.

Okay. But there is always some kind of tangible interest in an arbitrary transfer, whether it's brand recognition for sponsoring a sporting event, or a tax shelter, or the expectation - but no contractual obligation - of political favours.

That doesn't cover the other question: What does this mean:

If arbitrary transfers are used to increase production, such as in China, — Mark Nyquist

Are you talking about government subsidies to industry?

In any case, how does the spending of money relate to philosophy?

If arbitrary transfers are used to increase production, such as in China, they might have a geopolitical significance — Mark Nyquist

Presumably that's an investment in something tangible, or how could it increase production?
Investing in social programs is similarly earmarked for goods and services. Even if the program doesn't directly benefit the donor, a healthier labour pool and environment will.

I assume political donations are arbitrary transfers. That has some significance in political philosophy, as does making such transfers tax deductible. Also tax dodges in general, such as transferring assets offshore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lessons_of_History
That's a little book, distilled from 10 previous big books, all worth reading.

This post is so riddled with political and historical ignorance that any recommendation I could give would sound patronising. — Lionino

And take too long to explain.

Maybe. I guess I would respond to this by saying that this would just be another experiment. — Igitur

Of course. But it would be your own experiment - a conversation between you and the deity or whatever - no middleman to confuse the issue. Think of it as a spirit quest, along the lines that native North American and other peoples used to do before the European priesthood took over.

Assuming you care about religious truth, values, or community, you would probably also attempt to practice religions — Igitur

I have no idea how religious truth differs from common garden variety truth or personal truth, so I can't possibly care about it. Values and community do not require religious faith or adherence. I certainly would not attempt to practice one just for appearances - unless there was a threat of persecution, which there often is, and in which case deception is perfectly acceptable.

I like your take on this!

They would not be able to fall on the people if they were in the floor, — Sir2u

They are in the floor and fall on people on the deck below. In any case, they are far too big for the span and weight requirement. And not secured properly at the one end.
I know why they're in the plot, but it's bloody annoying when attempting to suspend disbelief. A writer with some imagination could find a more realistic predicament for the setting.

The most logical path to religion, or God, or the spirits, or whatever mystical thing you're seeking, is a wide berth around churches. Those vast piles of wasted stone, timber and human effort do not contain a deity or a soul. Walk in the woods on a May morning or an orchard in September twilight or across a meadow on a hot, still July afternoon, then rest in the shade of a viburnum. If you're ever going to have a spiritual experience and find some kind of truth, that's where you'll find it.

On submarines and I would suppose star-ships the beams would be specially made in the form of the hull but they would not use curved beams for internal support. — Sir2u

No, they would use beams to support internal deck floors, which fall on people at the first volley of enemy fire. It's not the supporting walls that collapse - they're still intact. It's not the hull that caves in - there is still oxygen. The badly attached 10" I-beams are always in the ceiling.

Ho-kay. Not quite following what would bend a convex support arch, but okay.
The sparks, I get. The steam, not so much.

Another question I cannot find an answer to is why space traveling beings are depicted with claws or tentacles that can never have been used to create the spaceships they ride around in. — Sir2u

Yes! I like that question.
(In my personal galaxy, the best spaceship designs are in Babylon 5*)
except the Minbari ones - all that wasted space overhead yet impossibly small beds.

Related question: Why do curved spaceships have so many straight steel beams in the ceiling and why do the beams fall down so easily?

I suppose a related question is, "Why do we humans find a deity coming through flames apposite?" — wonderer1

You're quite right - it's the same question.
Writers project their own cultural icons onto their creations.

Wait, is it true that if we released farm animals in the wild they would ALL just die? — LFranc

They wouldn't just die. Nor would they be killed by predators, since we've already killed most of the predators. But they wouldn't find enough habitable territory or pasture for a normal herd existence. And I have no doubt the yahoos with their automatic weapons would mow them down as easy game, then let most of the carcasses rot where they drop, since they can only carry one steer in the pickup and store only half in their freezer; the rest would have to be smoked. Lots of time and work.

Divesting ourselves of meat culture wouldn't be a simple one-step procedure. It would have to be thought out, planned and implemented properly, with central co-ordination and global co-operation. Do you see humankind capable of that, for any endeavour except a war? We can't even get our act together in the last minute and a half to extinction.

How phasing out meat could work (other threats permitting) is a decline in the demand and increased demand for more sustainable protein sources. One by one, ranchers would have to sell up or change to a different method or different product. The freezer trucks would not be repaired or replaced and fall out of service. One slaughterhouse would close and then another, awaiting conversion to luxury bunkers or gymnasiums. Economies adapt to new circumstances. If there is time....