Here's a little cliche which may come in handy in some circumstances...

If the things we want to hear...
Could take us where we want to go...
We'd already be there.

Shall we say, then that, there is a kind of thought that creates the thinker, as part of, the centre of, thought - call it identifying thought, and a kind of thought that is purely external, about the world, about the present, that does not add to the suffering self? — unenlightened

Everyone is free to say such things if it pleases them. There's no crime involved obviously. But, the person who is suffering would learn more from conducting the following experiment.

1) Improve diet
2) Improve exercise
3) Do yoga

If the suffering person won't take simple straightforward readily available steps to at least improve the situation modestly, then they have learned something very important. They aren't actually that serious about their suffering. This may be an unwelcome discovery, but it's actually good news to achieve this level of clarity.

Not only is suffering made of thought, but so is happiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, agreed. As I've said above, thinking is required to function in the world so we can't just get rid of it. So it's not a question of cure, but of management.

EATING: If eating is nourishing our body, ok, let's eat. When eating starts generating suffering, we stop eating.

THINKING: If thinking is nourishing our life, ok, let's think. When thinking starts generating suffering, we can take break from thinking.

Eating and thinking, both necessary mechanical functions of the body. Both good in moderation, both dangerous in excess.

Contrary to what you claim, the problem really is the content, not the act of thinking itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

If that was true then we would have long ago stumbled upon the correct thought content and we'd all be happy. What we see instead is that suffering in one form or another, to one degree or another, is universal property of the human experience. This clearly points to the source of suffering being something that we all have in common.

...and you telling a philosophy forum to think less — unenlightened

I see it as telling a philosophy forum to think this through to to the logical conclusion.

1) Suffering is made of thought, thus...
2) Less thought = less suffering.

Hi unenlightened,

Does this work for you?

1) If we're hungry, eat.
2) If we're tired, rest.
3) If thinking is making us nutty, take a break from thinking.

Point being, thinking is best seen as just another process of the body which needs to managed. We might observe how we don't complicate eating, sleeping, exercising, eliminating etc. When our body signals some action is needed in these areas we typically attend to the need in a simple straightforward obvious common sense manner. We don't turn it in to some complex sophisticated esoteric mysterious mystical process requiring experts etc.

What new age philosophers (and philosophers more generally) tend to hate about simple straightforward obvious common sense approaches is that strip away the glamour and make the subject ordinary. So, ok, that's bad for philosophers, I hear that.

But simple direct methods are good for those serious about relieving their suffering, because such methods are readily available to all.

A problem that comes up is that people have a bias for turning to authorities, and experts can't make a living without introducing complications that require an expert. And so folks go to the bookstore and buy all 34 books by their favorite expert and spend years reading all the complications, when maybe all they needed to do was get off the couch and go get some exercise. :smile:

So, I think disidentification can be a useful tool; but, where we have endogenous substrates afflicting us, such as depression or anxiety, it can be too much to ask for to create some schism in the mind of what is or is not us. "I have depression vs I am depressed." Is there really any difference at all? — Posty McPostface

I would propose that a "schism in the mind" is pretty much the definition of the human condition. Everybody experiences a division between the thinker and the thought. It is that perceived division which allows us to argue with ourselves, ie. be unhappy. That perceived division is generated by thought itself, thus it's not possible to overcome it with any collection of thoughts, however clever or insightful etc they may be.

Thus, what I'm suggesting is a shift of focus away from the content of thought, and towards the nature of thought.

If the content of thought was the source of the problem then by now surely some group of people would have stumbled upon the correct thought content which leads to peace. And then everyone else would have adopted that same thought content in order to obtain the highly valued peace. And we'd all be at peace. But that's not what happened.

What we see instead is that human suffering is universal in all times and places, no matter what thought content forms the group consensus of a community. The universality of the suffering points clearly to the source of the suffering being something all people everywhere in all times and places have in common. And that can only be thought itself.

Furthermore, I feel as though "disidentification" is a Westernized term for "detachment" in the Eastern tradition. So, one might find it of better use to try and apply that term instead of "disidentification"?[/quote]

The term detachment seems like a good plan here.

I think that there is probably much overlap in what we are both saying, with maybe varying degrees of emphasis. — 0 thru 9

Yes, agreed. The bottom line I think we both share is that whatever works is good.

If God does have a purpose what makes us think we could see it, understand it, and know it as such? — Rank Amateur

Thank you.

My wife is an avid wildlife rehabber, and it's normal for her to have a squirrel sitting on her shoulder while she pays bills on the Net. The squirrel can see the monitor, and the moving colors on the screen. But the squirrel doesn't have a fraction of the ability needed to understand the level of abstraction involved in the Internet. No clue at all, not the slightest clue. And the squirrel also doesn't have the slightest clue that it doesn't have the slightest clue.

That's the God debate for you. We can say the word God. We can see the moving ideas on the screen. And that's pretty much it.

But, the issue is that the mind is still overactive, or depressed, or some such issue, then no amount of mechanical activity will suffice to quell the mind. — Posty McPostface

Is any amount of analytical activity quelling the mind? We should reduce thought by doing more thinking?

No amount of mechanical activity will suffice to quell the mind? How about sleeping pills? If I take 10 sleeping pills after dinner, will I still be thinking at 80mph? Sorry, but the evidence clearly shows that mechanical solutions to overthinking exist. All I'm talking about are natural mechanical solutions which are healthier than taking drugs.

Yes, so whatever it is that is making you ask this question, go ahead and return it to the rightful owner even though it's been a few years. — Hanover

Which Indian tribe will you be giving your land to?

Without some proven ultimate authority to reference, I'm not sure we can call anything objectively universally right or wrong.

However, we can define right or wrong in relation to some stated goal. As example, if the goal is to have constructive conversations on this forum, it's wrong to scream in each other's faces.

If we first define a context, we can then define right and wrong within that context in a manner that could be called objective. As example, a study of 10,000 forums might reveal that screaming always leads to a pattern of unconstructive conversations. If screaming is proven to undermine the stated goal, then it is an objective truth within the context of that goal.

A very welcome bit of good news. Well done, Sam. :strong: You've conclusively demonstrated that anyone in this discussion who suggested you keep the ring was just flat out wrong ethically, and given what you've written above should reconsider their position. — Baden

What are the boundaries of these ethics?

Many advised Sam to return the ring he obtained unintentionally. Presumably that advice would have been the same had Sam stolen the ring. Would that advice have been the same had Sam stolen the ring a long time ago?

Is there a moral statute of limitations on theft?

If yes, what is the time period after which a stolen item becomes rightfully the property of the thief?

If no, what are the implications of that? Are we ethically bound to return all the stolen property we are in possession of?

Wittgenstein's work is far from clear and organized, way far. — Abel Alarco

That solves the problem for me.

PS: How do I change my screen name to "His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, Founder Of Bozoism, The Next Great World Religion"? I changed my mind and decided I want to do the guru thing after all, I could use the extra cash. :smile:

He says the cessation of thought is not possible — ChatteringMonkey

Ok, but to be a quibble monster, the cessation of thought happens naturally all the time. It happens when our brain is very interested in something being observed, the observation takes over and thinking is set aside. But anyway, this isn't that important, so...

Reducing the volume of thought is a more achievable and thus more practical goal. The serious person will set aside all the, books, experts, sophisticated theories, grand promises and all of that, and focus on developing a collection of simple mechanical exercises that help them manage thought.

The person who isn't serious will never get around to doing that work, and instead keep their heads in the guru books, much like the person who is constantly reading travel brochures on the comfort of their couch but never quite gets around to traveling anywhere. Guru books are very popular because they provide the illusion of movement towards something magical and wonderful etc, without having to actually do anything but read. If we were to burn all the guru books then there'd be nothing left to do but either get on with the work, or face that we're not going to, either of which provides more clarity than dreaming about whatever the guru book is promising.


LET'S GET SERIOUS

Here's an example of a simple mechanical exercise. This isn't a "one true way", just an example, so feel free to ignore this and design your own exercise. The idea here is just to manage the mind through the body.

==========

Start walking. Walk any pace that comes naturally. Observe that pace for awhile, just watch it.

Once you're in the groove of watching, tap the brakes a bit, slow the walking pace a little bit. Now watch that pace for awhile.

Repeat this pattern. Watch the pace. Tap the brakes. Watch the new pace. Keep gradually slowing the pace, spending some observation time with each pace before slowing again. A goal to shoot for might be to eventually be walking as slow as is possible while still moving.

Nothing complicated. Nothing sophisticated. And no more glamorous than brushing our teeth, just another act of routine management.

==========

I spend a lot of time in the woods and typically arise at sunrise all buzzed up from the Internuts. As I enter the woods I'll see myself pointlessly pounding down the trail like a man late for an important appointment. After doing the above exercise for awhile a few hours later I'll be standing in a field without moving for an hour just looking around, taking it in. The buzz is gone, replaced by peace.

If this was a guru book I would now tell a tale of some magical mysterious transcendent experience, blah, blah, blah, because that's why people are buying the book, to get that magic buzz. But this isn't a guru book and I'm not a guru, so I'm free to say that the magic buzz stuff is just a bunch of horseshit. All of that is just one more glamorous shiny toy becoming agenda getting in the way of peace, no different than the person dreaming of getting rich and famous and laid etc.

We don't need guru books. We don't need sophisticated sublime understandings. We just need simple mechanical methods for managing our minds.

This is little different than how we manage our bodies. When we're hungry we don't read a bunch of books on the science of digestion, we just go get something to eat. Simple, direct, practical, serious.

Eating a sandwich works for awhile, and then we have to eat again. We accept this system of routine management as being perfectly reasonable. We aren't foolish enough to go looking for some magic food that will end our hunger once and for all.

To continue....

There are philosophical world views that put forth the contention that and truth is a matter of subjective beliefs. I find this just as appalling. — Sam26

It's appalling if one first assumes that what human beings want and need is the objective truth. I would agree the objective truth is necessary in meeting the needs of the body, as would most religious people.

Meeting the needs of the mind is a different matter. Fantasy is a pervasive part of the human experience, a phenomena which reaches far beyond the boundaries of religion.

Finally, religion for the most part, is an example of a philosophy that's poorly done. — Sam26

I'm not religious myself, but just for the exercise I'll argue the other side of the coin.

The bottom line point of philosophy would seem to be to serve human beings. Most of the humans who have lived over the last 5,000 years or so have concluded that philosophy in the form of religion serves their needs better than philosophy minus the religion.

Your point may stand, it may be true that religion is philosophy poorly done. But that doesn't automatically equal philosophy minus religion being superior to philosophy in the form of religion. I'm assuming that was your point, but I may be assuming too much, clarify as needed.

If the standard we are measuring against are the formal rules of philosophy, you have a point. If the standard we are measuring against is serving the needs of human beings, you may not have a point.

Thanks for your interesting reply to my comments 0-9.

You have made the point that analysis is doing more harm than good. However, I must in general disagree with that assessment. — 0 thru 9

My argument is that human suffering arises from the nature of thought, from the way in which it operates. The evidence for this is that everybody suffers, and the differences between us are just a matter of degree. If suffering arose from bad thought content then surely by now we would have discovered which thought content prevents suffering and everyone would adopt those ideas to escape the suffering. So this theory is an analysis, agreed.

To put it bluntly, what most of us suffer from is spending too much time thinking about ourselves. Philosophers like us are perhaps particularly susceptible given our passion for thinking in general. Psychology would have us analyze all these ideas we have about ourselves. That sounds logical, and we tend to like the idea, because it involves spending even more time thinking about ourselves. Psychology might be compared to trying to cure oneself of alcoholism with a case of scotch.

I'm not proposing any of the above as "one true way" which everyone should follow. I'm for whatever works for an individual, even if what works for them violates all my wonderful theories. :smile:

What I'm trying to do is offer an alternative way of looking at suffering for those for whom psychological analysis isn't working. I'm attempting to strip away all the endless sophisticated complications of analysis (see this thread!) and reduce the issue to a simple mechanical problem which can be immediately acted on with simple mechanical techniques.

REALITY CHECK: One benefit of this approach is that it helps us pretty quickly discover how serious we are about reducing our suffering.

As the quote above from the Chan/Zen master Wu Hsin hints, trying to stop thought is going against the very nature of mind. — 0 thru 9

I'm not arguing that it's desirable or even possible to stop thought completely. It is however very possible to learn how to better manage thought. Here I'm referring not to thought content, but to the medium itself. As example, a drug can reduce the intensity of thought by purely mechanical means without editing thought content in any way. But of course drugs often have unwanted side effects so it's better when possible to seek more natural methods of managing thought volume.

I think the situation is more complicated than the quote from Hsin you shared above (I'm not aware of his work beyond that quote).

It seems our minds cycle in and out of thought all day long. There is observation, "data intake mode", and then there is thinking, "data processing mode". Observation is thought free and very natural. All techniques like meditation do is provide some level of conscious control over the natural shifts between observation and thought.

So there's a big pile of analysis for you. Yep, I like analysis too much too. I especially like to analyze why analysis is bad. :-)

A compromise between our perspectives might be achieved as follows. We might advise those suffering to dive right in to all the simple mechanical solutions such as improving diet, getting more exercise etc. If they pursue the readily available simple solutions with some earnestness then they are likely serious about reducing their suffering, and thus may very well benefit from analysis should it still be needed.

If the simple solutions are not pursued, then the person is likely not serious enough to benefit from analysis.

What if good and evil don't actually exist in the sense of being two different things, polar opposites? What if it's just a matter of perspective, of context? What if the division we perceive between good and evil is a human invention?

For example, on the surface on the Earth there is a clear obvious difference between up and down. The concepts of up and down are useful in that limited context.

But once you get far enough out in space, away from any clear reference point, every up is a down, and every down is an up. Up and down are united as one.

To us, standing on the surface of the Earth, up and down seem like universal truths, because for us they are. But in the vast overwhelming majority of reality, up and down are meaningless concepts.

Another idea for reducing distracting emotional argumentation...

Eliminate all screen names, any and all reference to the poster. A collection of ideas appear on the page, and who typed them is irrelevant.

After all, little of what we're saying can really be called "MY idea" anyway. We're all basically recycling ideas that have already been expressed a million times in one form or another.

Isn't it interesting how adamantly we will promote and defend a totally anonymous identity such as screen name SnoopyDog27? If I had no screen name I'd have nothing to promote, nothing to defend, and that would pull the rug out from under at least some of the pose striking.

Of course, then almost everyone would stop posting. So there's that. :smile:

Devil's advocate type thing? — Baden

Yes, I'm not a Nazi.

Let us think about it. — Baden

If you agree to the proposal, I'll pass the word on down the chain of command to my stooges to make sure they don't haul you off to the camps.

On the subject of Eastern philosophy and guru-ism etc...

Eckhardt Tolle is an excellent writer who communicates clearly on the kind of subjects being discussed here. He can be a good read for those new to such subjects, as his presentation is mostly in common sense everyday language. However...

The downside is that his students have built a silly new age guru worship circus environment around him, which he may have fallen victim to. But, if you can hold your nose and ignore all of that, he's still a good writer, a good introduction.

On the subject of Nazis....

I won't do so here, but a case can be made for Nazism. Should the mods be willing to conduct such an experiment I'll start a new thread for it. The point of such an exercise might be to illustrate that in the right hands any idea can be defended or destroyed, which may tend to illustrate the limitations of thought, reason and philosophy etc.

There's nothing to lose really, if you wind up not liking the thread you can always delete it.

Listen up you brainless bumbling bovines, and learn how rudeness can be a form of kindness.

Many or most forums can be described as mutual validation societies. You know, like minded people gather together to build a self flattering group consensus. "We are the chosen holy people", or "we are the laser sharp logic masters", and so on.

If we enter such a community and challenge the group consensus that may be welcomed because the challenge gives the community the opportunity to reinforce their self flattering story by rising to meet the challenge. If the challenge presented is ineffective the group will revel in their defeat of the outsider, and all will be well.

Problems will soon arise if the challenge presented is an effective challenge. There are two ways to present an effective challenge, the kind way, and the ruthless way.

KIND: The kind way to present an effective challenge is to do so rudely. This allows the threatened community to change the subject from the post to the poster, and gives them an out, an excuse to ban us without having to admit they are doing so to escape from the threat.

RUTHLESS: The ruthless way to present to present an effective challenge is to do so with impeccable manners, because now all doors of escape are closed.

So obviously it is in the spirit of love and compassion that I scream in your faces that all of you are a bunch of BRAINLESS BUMBLING BOVINES!!!

Is this the best rationalization you've read all day, or what? :smile:

Oops, gotta go, the nurse is bringing my medications...

Speaking of simple mechanical solutions, there's this, which I should have mentioned first.

Physical exercise.

The mind and body are not two things as the thought generated labels "mind" and "body" suggest, but rather one thing. This is good news as it means the mind can be positively influenced by work we do on the body.

1) So before we dive in to a pile of sophisticated analysis, let's have an exercise plan that we are loyal to.

2) If our diet can be improved, let's improve it.

3) Yoga is a secret weapon that has served many people very well. Definitely worth investing in that.

4) Massage is a miracle method! Don't miss out!

All of the above is work, but none of it is complicated. It's just a matter of rolling up our sleeves and actually doing it.

And if we don't do things like this, that's useful too, as the not doing informs us that we aren't really that serious.

After following the above plan faithfully for years I have totally cured myself of Manic Typoholic Bloviation disease, as you can clearly see for yourself in this thread. :smile:

Disidentification simply means, as tim wood has provided, freedom from being labeled by oneself or others. What about the process of disidentification? Do you think you could add to that? — Posty McPostface

Ok, I hear you now. Well, we could start with something easier than not labeling ourselves. We could for instance people watch at the mall and practice just observing without labeling or judging. Or we could take a walk in the park and practice observing everything so closely and carefully that the process of thinking about what we're observing is pushed in to the background.

Perhaps this will help? There is observation, and then there is processing what's been observed (ie. thinking). The more we are observing, the less we are thinking. So we can practice observing in a thousand different ways.

Thinking will continually interrupt the observing. That's completely normal. When that happens, and it will happen a LOT, we can just patiently set the thinking aside and get back to observing. Again, this is simple and mechanical, but not that easy at first.

It's like doing situps. We just do them, and do them, and do them, and do them, and stick with it patiently and persistently, and over time it gets easier and easier with practice.

I doubt such a plan will cure depression. But as we learn how to carve out a temporary space free of depression, we'll probably become less afraid of depression, and thus stop identifying with it so much. You know, weaken the bonds of that feedback loop.

Again, like with situps, no amount of analysis is going to solve the problem. Analysis tends to make it worse as it just feeds the thinking machine, poring more fuel on the fire.

In the end it seems to boil down to this.

We either find a system that works for us AND WORK IT...

Or we don't.

I'm not sure you can turn down the volume on 'depression' — Posty McPostface

In fact, one gets rid of depression entirely on a regular basis.

Like this...

We're driving to work thinking about the day ahead, depressed about a job we hate. We're thinking about all the mistakes we made to wind up in this job, and that depresses us further, etc etc.

And then a kid on a bike shoots out from a side street right in to our lane of traffic. Thinking is replaced by automatic reflexes as we swerve to avoid the kid. And in those few seconds we aren't depressed, because we're not thinking.

I'm sitting at my desk working on the computer. I hear somebody enter the room behind me. I turn to look to see who it is. And in that moment of looking I'm not depressed, because I'm not thinking, I'm looking.

This escape from thought, and thus from depression, is woven in to the fabric of every day life. It happens routinely but because it happens so fast and is so utterly normal we tend not to notice it.

Meditation is a collection of simple mechanical techniques for taking some conscious control of this process. Or, for some people it's fishing, or working in their garden. There are a thousand ways to the same place.

But the thing is, analyzing the situation is not one of them.

But, disidentification is not similar to what you are describing. — Posty McPostface

Ok, I agree that I may not be clear on what you mean by the term disidentification. Clarify if you wish.

So, how do you overcome this process of the mind that tells the depressive that they cannot address their depression? — Posty McPostface

Let's examine your question in fragments...

"you"
"overcome"
"the mind"
"the depressive"
"their depression"

Each of these items you've referred to is made of thought. Without thought, none of them can exist.

Psychology would have us analyze these thought products and try to understand them. If that process works, great, I'm all for anything that works.

If analysis doesn't work I'm suggesting an alternative way to look at the problem, as a purely mechanical issue. If I pull the power plug to my TV all the bad shows go away. Simple. Mechanical.

Likewise, if I'm racing down a wave and my brain is too busy doing geometry and physics to engage in thinking, all the "bad show" stories about my life go away. They go away not because the bad shows have been analyzed and understood, but because the medium the bad shows are made of has been temporarily turned off, thus making their existence impossible.

This is obviously not a permanent cure to depression because we have to think to survive. However, if one learns how to manage the volume of thought then one doesn't need to fear depression as much. If the shows on our TV get bad enough, we have a plan of what to do.

The volume of thought can be managed through simple mechanical exercises. It's like working to get a flat stomach, we don't really need to understand anything, we just need to patiently do the situps.

Philosophers tend to hate such solutions because they aren't sophisticated, complex, something to chew on, analyze, understand etc. All I'm saying is that if that analytical process doesn't work for someone, they may wish to explore simpler more mechanical alternatives.

As example, sometimes when my brain gets overheated (Death to whoever invented the Internuts!!!) I take an over the counter herb called Kava. It's like a muscle relaxer, it shows everything down, including my mind. It doesn't solve my problems, it just helps me chew on them with less enthusiasm. Obviously, this is a purely mechanical temporary solution. Not a cure, but superior to banging my head on the monitor and yelling at everyone on the Internet.

Finally, please keep in mind that I know these things because being an enthusiastic over thinker myself I've had to learn them.

I'm capable of analysing an argument, determining that it's fallacious, and then pointing that out in an arrogant or rude manner. — Sapientia

Ok, but what does the arrogant and rude manner have to do with analytical logic? Isn't it a completely separate agenda?

And, I believe All Sight is making the case that using a rude and arrogant manner makes one less persuasive, and thus such a manner is reasonably labeled illogical. If you were to now argue that the speaker is not interested in be persuasive, then what does "pointing that out" mean. Pointing out to who, for what purpose?

And so are you. — Sapientia

What? WHAT? How dare you accuse me of being capable of rudeness you ignorant peasant!!!! :smile: Seriously, ya, definitely capable of stepping on my own message with rude language. Would this be a good place for me to disclose that I've been banned from more forums than most of you ever thought of visiting? True story!

Jake, it is a pleasure to meet you and I do appreciate and agree with your thoughtful response. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

WTF?? You agree? You agree??? ATTENTION MODERATOR!! Clear violation of the rules!!!! :smile:

My only pushback to you is that I don't believe for a minute that your inner "sage" would fall based on another persons opinion. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, my experience has been that people who learn things learn those things because they need to learn them.

...it does not excuse an argumentative approach that is abusive. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ok, but this is a philosophy forum, not a Catholic forum. And so when somebody types ugly words we might be focused on better understanding our own experience.

Somebody calls me a dirty dog. I get upset. Why did I get upset? What is actually happening inside my mind? Typically it goes something like this...

A poster claims that I'm just some stupid old half senile geezer wasting time on the Internuts because I have no life. This story conflicts with the more flattering story I have about myself, which is that I am a seasoned sage passing the wisdom of the ages on to a new generation. :smile:

To the degree I am attached to the "seasoned sage" story I'm likely to resent the "stupid old geezer" story, because that old geezer story diminishes my importance.

Why do I need to feel important, large, significant, useful? Why am I attached to the sage story?? Probably because somewhere inside I feel small and so I'm using the "seasoned sage" story to push that perceived smallness away.

Why do I feel small? Because I think. Thought operates by a process of division and it has divided my experience of reality in to "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small. "Everything else" is very very big. And so I attach "me" to some group, some cause, some story in an attempt to make myself feel bigger, less vulnerable, less alone.

I'm not suggesting the above analysis is perfectly correct, I'm just offering a sample of what kind of inquiry should be taking place.

If a members prefer to engage in a finger pointing blame and shame manipulation by guilt campaign designed to edit everyone else to our taste, ok, go for it. That's a fool's errand imho, but there's no law against it. But such a process is better pursued on websites that are all about moralism, such as a Catholic forum for example. Catholics (and many other Christians) love moralism, they can never get enough of it. Those who want to pursue a moralist strategy would feel quite at home there.

You're not trying to change me? What are you doing then? Having a laugh? Wasting time? Personally I would much prefer it if you were actually trying to change me... but what are you doing? — All sight

As I've already clearly stated, I'm discussing the topic of ugly speech, and NOT you personally. I'm discussing this topic for the reasons already stated numerous times.

I don't wish to control my emotions, I wish to control the world. — All sight

What I hear you saying is, "I don't wish to control myself, I wish to control everybody else." Ok, go for it, good luck with that, please post again once you've finished changing all the people who say ugly things.

What are the results we seek? To not care that someone is drowning next to us, or for someone not to be drowning next to us. — All sight

It appears to me that you don't care about those drowning in emotional pain because you're clinging tightly to a methodology which can't help them.

then I don't think that it is appropriate, or rational to just change the way we feel. — All sight

Unnecessary suffering is rational??

Is all forms of derogatory and hateful speech always okay — All sight

You're looking at this through a moral lens. And thus you ask, "what is ok?" Like I keep saying, I'm not looking at this through a moral lens. I'm looking at it through a rational practical problem solving lens. I'm concerning myself with finding the most effective means of relieving the suffering being experienced by the listener.

If that way of looking at it doesn't interest you, ok, no problem. I'm just trying to add something to the thread that isn't already here, which I see as being the job of posters.

I fully admit to not being a stoic, but being emotionally swayed by the lights I'm painted in by others. — All sight

We all experience this to some degree or another, even Baba Jake. :smile: If we don't wish to be emotionally swayed (sometimes we do) then what is to be done? Here are some options:

1) We can try to control what everybody on the Internuts says.

2) We can try to control how we experience what people on the Internuts say.

This is a philosophy forum. We're supposed to be reasoning. And so I ask you, which of the options above is the most rational? Which is most likely to deliver the results we seek?

Again, please note, none of the above has anything at all to do with morality.

have also found it amusing when being rude, blunt, arrogant or aggressive.... — Sapientia

Emotional agenda.

....has been contrasted with being analytical and logical, — Sapientia

Intellectual agenda.

as if the one and the other are mutually exclusive. — Sapientia

They are mutually exclusive. Being rude, blunt, arrogant, aggressive (been there, done that, many times) typically has nothing at all to do with the topic being discussed in a thread, unless perhaps the topic is the nature of the human ego.

Being rude, blunt, arrogant, aggressive (been there, done that, many times) is basically jerking off in public, and labeling it as some great intellectual achievement.

Christianity is perhaps the most successful institution to grace the earth, that it hasn't fully succeeded doesn't mean that it hasn't succeeded better than anything else ever has. — All sight

Ok then, let's talk Christianity. Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself", right? This is commonly thought of as a favor one is doing one's neighbor. But let's look closer. Where is that experience of love actually happening? In the lover's mind, right?

So, to translate this out of Jesus lingo in to my lingo....

"If your neighbor says ugly stuff to you, love your neighbor, and you'll feel better. CHOOSE to experience the ugly stuff in a manner that will be a positive experience for you."

The important point though, is that you're talking past me, imagining that I'm personally hurt by verbal abuse and complaining — All sight

My comments have nothing whatsoever to do with you personally. I've been making these same points for years all over the net, long before I met you. They tend to be unpopular points, because humans often prefer to do the judgment dance, a focus on who is to blame etc.

it was in perusing the site that I noticed the prevalence of it, and suggested that it was, indeed, unpleasant (as if it were not intended to be), but the subject was that it is counter productive, and poor strategy. — All sight

The ugly talk on this site is very very modest compared to most sites, and most other philosophy forums, just so you know, something to be thankful for, to the mods mostly.

The ugly talk is unpleasant if we choose to experience it as being unpleasant. Let's do an experiment....

ALL SIGHT - YOU ARE AN ORANGE POTATO!!!

Did you experience that insult as unpleasant? No, you chose not to. You CHOSE.

but the subject was that it is counter productive, and poor strategy. — All sight

Ok, I agree that if we are trying to persuade readers to our position, calling them names is not likely to be productive. The people saying the ugly stuff typically aren't even interested in the subject being discussed, but rather in using the conversation as a vehicle for inflating their ego, making themselves feel bigger, because they actually feel small, etc etc.

Imagine we have two families, two sets of parents. One of them is supporting and encouraging. The other disparaging, insulting. Do you think that the results on the child would be random, all else being equal? Or if the child is damaged, this is because they allowed themselves to be, and is their own fault? — All sight

I'm referring to adults, people who have taken responsibility for the emotional state of their own minds. I agree this should not be expected of children. And adults will rarely achieve perfection in this way either. But we can achieve far more control than we typically do. If we CHOOSE to. The problem is that we often CHOOSE not to, because the fantasy victim pose is quite popular.

The disdain, disgust, and disapproval is fully justified, and accurate, and you should care about it. — All sight

Ok, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pay any attention to criticism, I agree some of it will be useful. I'm arguing that if we experience criticism in an negative emotional manner, we have CHOSEN to do so.

Again, please note that I'm not making a moral statement here. I'm not interested in blaming the person hearing the ugly words. I'm not interested in blaming anybody. I'm interested in solving the problem of emotional distress, to the degree that is possible. I'm making a practical proposal, not a moral claim.

This is why I both spoke of restraint — All sight

I have no argument with a speaker choosing to restrain the range of language they will use. My argument is with third parties who think they will solve the problem of emotional distress via a blame and shame moral crusade. Again, please observe the evidence, 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian moralizing has not ended ugly speech. I'd be for it if it worked. It doesn't work, at least not in very many cases.

And so we live in a world, especially on the Internuts, where some people are going to say ugly things some of the time. Given that there is no known mechanism for preventing this behavior, if there is to be a solution it necessarily resides in the mind of those receiving the speech.

This theory will not be welcomed by those whose primary focus is trying to manage other people's behavior.

This theory will be welcomed by anyone who is serious about relieving the emotional stress that ugly speech can generate, because this theory puts the listener in charge of their own destiny.

As example, do you want your emotional experience to be dictated by what I do or don't say? Or would you prefer that you be in charge of determining your emotional experience. Whose going to be in control of your experience, me and a million other Internet strangers, or you?

Yes, and, in particular, a social issue and an image issue. There are a lot of people, some of them here, who need to perceive themselves as the scientific debunkers, champions of science. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, this is a very common position on philosophy forums. It's good that somebody is making that argument, but it's more interesting when they leave the emotional ego agendas out of it, to the degree that is possible for any of us.

As Searle pointed out, Materialism (or Science-Worship) is the prevailing religion of our time. In the minds of a lot of people here, proclaiming and championing science establishes one's credentials as one of the scientific, rational people. There's a perception of status in aligning oneself with the prevailing belief-system. .more scientific than thou. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes again, this is the mirror image of the "holier than thou" pose some religious people get wound up in.

If you'll forgive a shameless plug, in this thread I make the case that while science is clearly a very effective mechanism for generating new knowledge, out of control knowledge development is inevitably going to lead to the collapse of modern civilization. Thus, worshiping science as a "one true way" is not very rational. Understandable, but not full rational.

Yes, I sometimes suspect that the people who are loud Atheists and Materialists now, would, in medieval days, have been loud and aggressive persecutors of accused nonbelievers in the official authoritative-perceived religion of that time. — Michael Ossipoff

I've spent a lot of time on atheist forums over the years. You often find that the loudest atheists were once upon a time a loudest theist. It's not theism or atheism they are interested in so much as it is the experience of being adamant.