The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. — prothero


Clear horseshit. These are views of entire blocks and full stretches of highway - multiple cities, multiple neighbourhoods. This is just having blinkers on, at this stage. — AmadeusD

In the sake of fairness, I wonder if this is a semantic issue at heart. I've lived in both big cities and small towns; 5 blocks in a big city can be nothing, but 5 blocks in a small town can be half the town. I think the most fair way to compare would be to previous riots/protests of similar size, and whether the amount of peaceful demonstration to destruction is above or below the median.

I have never heard this term before (admittedly, I am out of touch). It immediately resonated. — Jeremy Murray

Tbf it's not a common term. I'm an old sci-fi nerd, lol.

His premise, if you haven't read it, was that the era of 'mass entertainment' was fundamentally different from the 'typographic' era that preceded it. As a student of McLuhan, he drew on his thinking to tackle the medium of television - which lead to the message of dislocation. — Jeremy Murray

I would probably agree, but further posit we are post-mass media to a degree, as the internet has allowed people to sink further and further into soloed entertainment. On some level, I think part of the general unrest in America and possibly worldwide is *because* we are losing mass media to increasingly fractured interests. We no longer have a common story to tell or share, so everyone else seems increasingly alien outside your specific circle.

How do you see this playing out? — Jeremy Murray

Unclear. I think in a way the Republicans may be becoming the new big tent party temporarily while the Democrats become the new "moral majority." I think how that shakes out will largely depend on who wins the power struggle after Trump dies/leaves office and if that results in a party fracture or not.

Neither party seems to actually believe in anything. Both land on 'stories' that resonate with their base. — Jeremy Murray

I would say that's what it's always been, to a degree. As I said above, I think the larger problem is that our increasing levels of internal navel gazing is making it difficult to see differing ideas as something to entertain. If everyone you know always agrees with you, why would you ever want to talk to someone that didn't?

When Trump and Hegsmeth really start to order American troops to teargas demonstrators, then let’s see what kind of loyalty they really command. — Wayfarer

Aren't there numerous examples of things like that happening in our history already?

If Trump is using these protests/riots as an excuse to crack down and extend his authority, it seems like the No Kings protests might just give him more of that. By attempting to establish his actions in LA as "law and order" against non-citizens via the media, then the natural next step would be to create a similar situation that "justified" doing the same to Americans, and then using anyone swept up in that with a particularly salacious record to further justify it in the media. Kind of feels like playing in to his hands.

Oh the two party system is absolutely a big part of it, and it's especially weird right now, because I suspect we are in the midst of another party realignment but few want to admit it. In meatspace it's still pretty easy to find people with fairly normal or apathetic political opinions, but as more of the social landscape moves online and things become increasingly politicized, the internet has made it difficult to maintain neutral positions. I'm a registered Independent who has never voted for Trump, but I find myself increasingly alone politically as I don't fully agree with either side, despite previously leaning more left. Neither party seems interested in much aside from getting re-elected by telling you how bad the other party is.

If the deportations are racially motivated, why is that not already happening?

My understanding is that the South African immigrants were brought here legally, whether or not you agree with the government's reasoning for doing so.

I'm going to be honest. As someone who is very anti-illegal immigration for the purposes of robust social programs, job security in the face of automation/AI, social cohesion and UBI, I have found that there seems to be literally no "good optics" when it comes to enforcing immigration aside from rolling over and letting it happen. I've seen fairly milquetoast and reasonable stances shouted down as bigoted and racist time and again over my lifetime. I'm sad to say, at this point it's made me fairly authoritarian on this particular issue, as even normal enforcement seems to get people's knickers twisted. As long as the problem is fixed, I am willing to allow a lot. People really underestimate how bad things are going to get if we don't get our population under control before the jobs start going away.

Does that make me reactionary? Maybe. But if someone complains every time you try to fix a problem, eventually you stop caring about their complaints.

Tbh, that is a question I think philosophy has still never answered in a satisfying way.

I would argue violence often has an implicit message, it's just usually a destructive or restrictive one. Violence is often a physical "No." And again gesturing to martial arts, they create martial forms that blend the beauty and skill of art with usually violent physicality.

I would argue in the case of martial arts, the "art" usually comes in the mastery of form, technique, understanding and body/mind alignment. Iirc, "Kung fu" does not specifically refer to martial arts per se, but denotes mastery of a skill. Violence can be a skill, and a skill can become an art in the hands of a master.

I don't think art and science are comparable in that way, tbh. Science concerns itself with proven and repeatable things in a way that art does not. My point is that if there was a science to art that resulted in proven, repeatable "good art," then any artist that doesn't do that would be a fool doomed to failure. However, we frequently see art that "breaks the rules" change how we think about art and what makes it "good." I think that volatility of opinion and inherent subjectivity means that there cannot be a wide, objective standard of art beyond insular taste groups. Though perhaps I am misunderstanding you. It seems like you may agree that art is on some level subjective, but I got a little lost as to what your point was tbh.

What I mean is that even things that seems still are still moving on a sub-atomic level. Degenerating into baser elements, electrons moving in the body, etc., We see these changes happening in our reality and use time as a socially constructed metric for comparing what we perceive as the "original state" to the "current state."

If everything in the universe were to suddenly and completely stop moving down to the sub-atomic level, all of reality would grind to a halt, and time as we know it would cease to exist. Not only would we be unable to tell that time is passing, there would be no state change to indicate time has passed at all. And a world where time cannot be measured is arguably a world without time. Ere go, time is a way to measure change.

That's my stance, more or less.

But that goes back to my original point, that it depends on how you define objective vs subjective. I think the answer changes depending on what scale you look at, but that on the largest universal scale, there is no objective standard of art. The point I am trying to make is that on small scales (small communities or specific art movements), objective standards might be possible for art, but that in the larger scale they are not. I feel like that's not coming across based on the responses I'm getting.

Butting in here, but isn't you responding to FO proving their point to a degree? They post, you respond. Obviously as adults we are responsible to how we react to things, but it is also clearly possible to say things that will get people to react in semi-predictable ways. I believe this means there can be some gray areas. An example that comes to mind is how "fighting words" are not legal, as they encourage other people to fight.

I think we may be talking past each other, tbh. I'm not necessarily saying that popularity = objective quality. I'm saying that if there was an objective standard of "good art" then it would be impossible to make good art that does not follow that standard. The fact that this is not the case implies there is no objective standard, imo. If there was a known way to make art good every time, artists would just do that.

An example that comes to mind is how art of the past sometimes becomes subject to "Seinfeld is unfunny" syndrome, where when it first came out it was considered groundbreaking and amazing. However, over time other art emulated it to the point that it robs the original of all the things that made it new and interesting, making it seem bland in hindsight. Over enough time, this cycle can start over with the changing of culture, and those things can become new and fresh again.

I mostly agree, which is why I lean towards more free speech than not. I just think that, in an environment with totally unrestricted free speech, the end result can end up being similar to a restricted speech environment. And to that end, self-censorship imposed by majority pressure is arguably harder to break than externally imposed censorship from the government, as external censorship is more likely to create direct resistance.

I'm not sure I agree, if I understand you correctly. I would think it would be the opposite: that there could be no arguing with objective truths because they are, by their nature, objectively self-evident. It is difficult to argue that the sky is not blue, for instance, but people can argue all day long about how the color blue makes them feel. Though as I said in my original comment, I think the difference between objective and subjective is partially a matter of where you approach the question from. In minimalism, less is better. In maximalism, more is better. Within their own genre there are "objectively correct" approaches, but within the larger field of art there is not.

In a perfect world, yes. But I think the realities of life mean that the majority will always try to impose its will on the minority, and that bad actors will use unrestricted free speech in ways that are actively harmful. Imo, a majority often operates like a single creature that reacts very negatively to things that threaten its power/worldview. As I said, I lean towards free speech more than not, but I also recognize that at a certain point any power that is free to everyone will eventually become concentrated in increasingly small groups through consolidation (intended or otherwise).

I think of the story of the Emperor with No Clothes. Technically everyone is free to point out the king is naked, but the majority disagrees and pressures everyone into silence/agreement.

I'm not sure I understand your point. My argument is that if artist A and B have conflicting opinions about what makes art good (say, maximalist vs minimalism), then that implies there isn't an objective correct answer.

Personally I believe free will is actually very limited, and that most of the choices we make are done by subconscious algorithmic thought processes that mean the thing we choose we likely always going to be the thing chosen in that particular instance. I believe only in the rare cases where the mental algorithm comes back with equal percentages does free will truly exist.

Voted "other."

I think free speech is a double edge sword no matter how you cut it. Full free speech will end up with the majority shouting down the minority. Restricted free speech gives the government power to decide who gets to speak and create false ideological majorities. Frankly I don't think there is a good answer either way, though I lean more towards free speech than not.

Interesting you bring that up, as I'm working on a poetry book right now that's sort of the opposite. I think poetry, by its nature, lends itself to talking about metaphysics better than prose does.

I think it depends on what you mean by "objective." Within certain cultures or even human culture at large, I think there are some "objective" art standards that tend to appeal to how our brains are wired. However, I think what we see as objective truths are just subjective truths that are broadly applicable to our lived experiences, and are not based on true external universalities. If nothing else, there have been so many conflicting theories of art and what makes it good that it seems impossible for there to be a single "standard" for what makes objectively good art.

I think in pictures instead of words, and am a very anxious person. However, I wonder if that's because of neurodivergence more than anything. Personally I think being anxious is just a natural byproduct of being self-aware in modern society.

Tangentially related question: do you dream in 1st or 3rd person typically?

Yes, all moral systems are doomed to subversion, ideological coups or general degeneration. Most systems are resistant to change by their nature, but moral questions are constantly shifting and changing with time, material factors and social expectations.

Yes, I think violence can be an art. Case in point: martial arts. Although I think there is some semantic shenanigans here. While violence caused by nature and humans are both violence, I think violence that is done by non-thinking "actors" should possibly be considered something different for the purposes of this discussion.

My response would be to look at how that went over during Covid-19, tbh. If you lie for a "good reason" and then get caught, people will still call you a liar. I also think you have to consider that, in this scenario, NHI would theoretically have moral rights as well.

Q: What is faith?
A: Baby, don't hurt me.

In all seriousness though, I think this is a difficult thing to pin down. I think faith can mean different things to different people, but I think of it as a strong belief in the way things work through mostly anecdotal evidence. The world is more complicated than our minds can truly wrap themselves around, so we create mental constructions of the world based on experience that can through time or external reinforcement become beliefs and faith. When someone's faith is shaken, I'd argue it's often when they're confronted with something that causes mental dissonance in their faith ie how they believe the world works. Which does not mean that all faith is misplaced, just that it's not always easy to tell where to place it, as none of us can claim to know everything. So in the end, maybe faith is the belief that things will work out in the end ie, won't hurt me.

This goes back to the heart of the debate, why would you have to "convince" someone of something that doesn't actually result in any benefit or alleviation of burden? — Outlander

I think there are several examples of ways of thinking we have managed to convince most people out of historically. Human sacrifice and slavery were once fairly common compared to now (not that gender discussion is at that level, of course). I would also argue that a post-gender way of thinking could result in an easing of burden, it's just so intrinsically linked into how we currently think that it's difficult to see the ways it limits us. However, I also acknowledge that there are downsides and pitfalls, as on some level I also believe gender norms serve as a baseline for many people as a way of orienting themselves in reality and explaining who they are to themselves. Tbh I'm not convinced it would be a full on improvement either, as I think attempts at post-gender thought sometimes fall into the trap of inventing new social roles for people to fill that then start to become increasingly solidified by time and social pressure. I just can't help but think that we put so much effort into gender/sex discussions as a society that it ultimately distracts us from more universal issues. But then I still think of myself as a man, so maybe I'm part of the problem I'm describing, lol.

The best part about modern society is that everyone is equal. Provided you follow the law. You can walk around thinking you're a cat and have a right to pee anywhere, but in reality, if you break the law, you will be placed under arrest or otherwise suffer real and tangible punishment toward your person or asset. That's the only way to get people to behave. And that's how the world we live in is. — Outlander

I agree with this and your following paragraph. I'm not really talking about politically correct stuff here though per say. When I say "post-gender" thought what I mean to say is that gender roles would not be expectations so much as statistical observations, while still acknowledging sexual differences. As you said, everyone is more or less free to do what they want within the confines of the law, I'm talking more about transforming the social expectations of people. Kind of like how back in the 90s there was that big push to let boys and girls play with each other's respective toy sets. Tomboys and letting boys play with easy-bake oven without it being weird, kind of thing. I think there will be obvious statistical patterns of behavior that will arise along sex lines, but my point is removing the expectation of it. We as humans are hard coded to see patterns, and often we let the patterns become expectations, and then expectations can become beliefs. I think challenging the expectation is good while acknowledging that not everyone is an outlier.

Also, glad to see you back after your 5 month absence. Feel free to post in the Shoutbox as far as what you've been up to. — Outlander

Thank you for noticing. Not much to tell, honestly. My interests can just be kind of flighty sometimes.

I think the gender/sex split makes sense to differentiate performative roles vs biological ones. However, I also think that gender roles in general tend to be inherently limiting when enforced (socially or otherwise), and that gender roles by their nature tend to end up at least socially enforced. Realistically I believe post-gender thinking is the best way forward, though I'm not sure how possible it would be to convince people of this. I think we are capable as a society of accommodating our various biological differences without getting as hung up as we do about what parts people have or if we think how they act matches their parts. That said, people seem to *really really* like gender roles.

I would argue that perhaps you have this backwards. I think of time as a unit of measurement for change. If nothing changes, there is no way to tell time.

>So, what do you mean by 'understand'? I think you mean 'perceive a clearly discernable causal sequence.' The principles that drive internal combustion engines, for example, are like that. And generally speaking you could say that the behaviours describable in terms of classical physics, chemistry, and other such 'hard sciences', are also clearly understandable from a cause-and-effect sequence.

I am delighted you bring that up. I went through a phase where I got really into epistemology, specifically the works of Pyrrho, and it made me realize that you're right, it is very difficult to truly *know* something. At some point, everything breaks down to prior experience and our flawed physical perceptions, so what does it mean to *know* anything, especially when all throughout history things that people know as fact turn out to be wrong.

So I suppose what I am getting at, related to our other conversation, is perhaps science and magic have a non-dualist nature with each other?

>Your analogy breaks down here, in that religions are not primarily concerned with producing effects or outcomes, in that same narrow or limited sense. There might often be cross-over, in that in traditional cultures magic and religious rituals were often intertwined, but religions also have an altogether different role, that of situating humankind in a cosmically-meaningful narrative framework.

Point taken.



Reading my own words back here I find them hard to defend, and your points difficult to dispute. Apologies for my tone.

Ah, Kant and Jung were what originally got me into philosophy, iirc. It's been forever since I read them though.



>designed my curriculum around those pursuits - philosophy, comparative religion and anthropology being central to it

A class after my own heart. It sounds like we share many of the same interests. Comparative religion has been an interest of mine for some time.

>At the end of that, I thought that (and I still think that) Buddhism has the best overall product offering, so to speak.

There are definitely elements of Buddhism that speak to me, zen specifically, and I've fluctuated between that and Taoism over the years on which one I lean more towards. In general I find I like the sense of forward momentum of the Tao, but in many ways they kinda seem like different takes on the same concept. Not to be reductive, but to quote Dracula, "perhaps the same could be said of all religions."

> It means 'saving insight' - basically, enlightenment, in that Eastern sense. And though it's something I never have and probably never will attain, I believe there is abundant textual evidence that it is real.

My understanding is that the concept of Gnosis is essentially the same concept of The Way, just filtered through an early Western/Christian lens. Iirc, each of us contains a spark of the divine that we must come to know and embody, which sounds a lot like the Tao/Enlightenment to me, so it sounds like we agree there.

I'm also interested in how some of the older Western schools of thought approached some of the ideas found in Tao and Buddhism, but seem to have different reactions to it. In particular, I remember some aspects of (I think?) Gnosticism and cynicism having some interesting parallels, though they seemed to take it in different directions.

I'm less familiar with the Hindu sources but I have dabbled in some Buddhist thought as well, though not to any great degree. Can you elaborate on what makes them more accessible? My understanding is that part of the "impenetrableness" of the Tao is a feature and not a bug.

I don't know that "mutually beneficial" is the same as selfless, as it is by definition, beneficial to both parties.

To put it another way:

Science we don't understand is "magic."
Science we do understand is not magic, it is science.
Therefore, explainable magic is science.
Corollary: Science *is* explainable magic.

If explainable magic is science, then unexplainable science slips back into the category of "science we don't understand," meaning that the only difference between science and magic is if you, the observer, believe you understand the underlying processes of what is happening. Both magic and science exist simultaneously, and can only be differentiated by an outside observer. As the quote I used originally states, highly advanced tech would be magic to cavemen, and sufficiently advanced tech from the future would seem like magic to us, but the only difference is whether or not we have some structure for investigation and explanation. So science and magic aren't necessarily opposites, they're just kind of different attitudes/states of being, imo.

For a specific verse, here is one from Wayne Dyer's translation:

“It is through selfless action I will experience my own fulfillment."

As much as I love seemingly contradictory lines like this, this is one I've experienced issues with irl. I've been told I would "Light myself on fire to keep others warm," which seems like it falls within the selfless action, but I have not seen it lead to much fulfillment long term, and have been told repeatedly by people I, essentially, need to be more selfish. How do you see this line working in a practical sense?