It is not what I laid out. It is a satirical piece yet I found it interesting.

As a hypothetical problem it is still a problem. Cornering it as an extreme idea by viewing it in its extremities only is certainly one way of ignoring the problem.

I am talking about this at the highest degrees of status/power/influence rather than across the entire social strata simply because those that are stupid and in possession of greater status/power/influence can cause untold damage to themselves and many others whilst remaining oblivious to the fact. — I like sushi

I don’t see any mention of concentration camps so fuck off.

You’ve tried to define dasein before and failed. Not surprising as Heidegger failed too. That is my point.

Yeah, that's what we need. Some concentration camps. — T Clark

If that’s what you get from what I wrote go away and bother someone else please.

Yeah, in a strange way as they 'better' the 'worseness' :D

Oops!

AMended: those that MAKE their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless.

The Buddha simply pointed out that attachment to things which are impermanent will lead to suffering once they are gone. If one may simply enjoy the moment as it comes, without attachment, there will be a willingness to let things go, once they are gone. — Present awareness

And okay with suffering. Life without suffering is a contradiction.

I mean, the horror of the realization that nobody will ever love or value me nearly as much as they do themselves. That in the end, myself, my life, and my hopes don't mean a shit to anybody else...that to them, I am just an object to be used in the achievement of their ends, and am otherwise utterly expendable. — Michael Zwingli

Hold onto that thought. Nihilism could well be a necessary 'passage of rites' kinda thing. Sadly buddhists often tend to wallow in it like they've discovered something special when they've really just notice the door and forgot to walk through it ... which is also necessary if your doctrine at its heart is about doing away with 'suffering'. Ironic me thinks.

It usually helps if you address the definitions used in the OP and recognise analogies when used ;)

Google it

I think everyone is stupid - that's an underestimate? — unenlightened

If everyone was Stupid we'd all be dead. So yeah. Huge underestimate I'd say. If everything everyone was doing was a detriment to themselves and everyone else then I wouldn't be able to communicate via the internet with you as they'd be no power and I'd be scrounging around ruins for food starving, so that I could use it as bait to kill people rather than eat in

A hungry man-eating tiger is not stupid. — unenlightened

Funny joke.

Who knows? — unenlightened

Precisely the problem. So if, as proposed, such Stupidity is prevalent in human society we're all screwed. Can our intelligence (not merely Intelligence) figure it out if it is the case. I cannot but I'm not much more than average. Which leads to another idea in the article ...

We all underestimate the number of Stupid people there are in the world and the most Stupid people tend to think they are Intelligent.

Take care of stupid therefore, and educate stupid, and understand stupid and be compassionate towards stupid. That is intelligence in action. — unenlightened

Given the specific definition to entangle with Stupid is to become Stupid. Compassion towards a hungry man-eating tiger won't stop it from eating you. Compassion towards someone who is Stupid (in the context of the OP) would just result in greater harm to yourself.

Think of it like this. If someone is walking around with high explosives attached to them - which they believe are expensive jewelry - that have various flashing lights and switches that could sent the explosives off if toyed with. What would happen if you got close enough to tell them they should remove said explosives? Do you put yourself in danger or not? Can they be reasoned with if they have either no concern or comprehension of what situation they are currently in.

We cannot 'teach' people not to be Stupid in this sense. If we can then how? Given the definition of Stupid is to act in a manner that is harmful/detrimental to both themselves and others. Can Stupid be changed? What makes someone Stupid to the point that they un/wittingly cause detriments to everyone in their vicinity including themselves?

Is this just an impossible problem to deal with? Maybe it is. I just found the concept interesting.

Actions are intelligent or stupid rather than actors. — unenlightened

That is kind of the point. Following from this people are more or less inclined towards Stupidity than others (make more Stupid actions).

People who behave in a Stupid way are unpredictable and therefore dangerous. We need to avoid them or they'll drag us down. How do we do this? How do we guard against them falling into positions of influence/power/status?

The definition given bases Stupidity on the overall outcomes. I don't think there is any suggestion that some people are Stupid only and other Intelligent only. The point is that there are clearly people who will act against their own best interests and against the interests of others (intentionally or not) and that these individuals are dangerous because it is impossible to predict what they are trying to achieve if the outcome literally benefits no one.

Varying degrees doesn't dismiss the underlying point being made by this idea of Stupidity. A Stupid use of Intelligence is contradictory too so as defined (see OP) you cannot simultaneously be Stupid and Intelligent in the same moment. You can certainly appear as Stupid one day and Intelligent the next (at different points), but again, that is missing out the point made in how Intelligence and Stupidity are distinguished.

Note: Stupid and Intelligent, not merely stupid and intelligent. I capitalised to make a distinction so Intelligent and Stupid are mutually exclusive in the context given.

I do sometimes think that the biggest dangers are what makes humanity reveal itself more fully. In this case Stupidity would have its bonuses in helping the Intelligent take notice and action.

I think some instances of Banditry in your quotes there. They serve you and your ego but pile on the hate towards some others?

I’m happy to be Bandit if this is viewed as an ego boosting comment, but it is made with the intent of ‘helping’ you as you appear more Intelligent than a Bandit by my estimation. Maybe I’m less of a Bandit and more of a Helpless type?

If either of us are Stupid then our current circumstances should tell us (unless we’re simply lucky/oblivious)? Tough thing navigating this mess of human aptitude eh? :D

People think they walk with their legs and carry things with their arms. Yet we carry ourselves with our legs and the world holds us.

He really doesn't. — Banno

Because he is a hack. Anyone who using a contradiction to explain their way out of a corner then leaves other instances of contradictions unattended is playing at the worst kind of sophistry. ‘Dasein’ doesn’t mean anything and no matter how many times he repeatedly reframes the ‘meaning’ of the term ‘Dasien,’ in this or that context, it didn’t fool me for a second that such explicit contradictions didn’t make an ounce of sense.

I also find it tiresome when I’m told he makes more sense when you’ve read his earlier work. If so why can’t anyone explain what he meant? And given that he wrote pages of waffle explaining the most basic points why didn’t take any care whatsoever to explicate the use of the term ‘dasein’ … because there isn’t one is the answer. He simply hid everything behind this obscure term and elsewhere openly uses contradictory terms and frames them as ‘not contrary’ as if that is a good enough explanation. He requires the reader to literally reconstruct their language (I’m not against that) yet offers no guiding principles and simply moves on quickly by re-presenting ‘dasein’ over and over as if it will hypnotise the reader into believing it (which happened to work on some sadly).

I’m wise. It basically means you’ve made tonnes of mistakes and keep on making mistakes and recognising them rather than getting hung up over them and falling into a pit of despair.

Some people are "wise" (in any of the above terms) much earlier than others. When I was 40 I had a boss who was 30 years old, and she was far wiser than I. However, even "wise ones" can make colossal errors and blunders which are decidedly not wise. — Bitter Crank

I think if there is a rough age where ‘wisdom’ starts to blossom it is probably at around the 30 yr old mark. Anyone stating they are wise in their 20’s is likely not at all wise, yet if others beyond that age state they are wise and they refuse the label there is a good chance they are wise beyond their years at least.

Like I outlined above, wisdom to me is all about experience and learning from experience. The idea of wisdom in youth would be simply to listen to what those older than you have to say and understand they have made many more mistake in life than you have so you’re better off listening to them seriously rather than acting like they are idiots who made poor choices in life.

Time is a measurement of movement. — john27

It is a measurement of Entropy.

I think the fact that life is finite gives it value. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t even notice it as ‘life’ we’d just keep being us and then perhaps section up the span of existing in some other way that gave it relative value.

Given that some organisms live for hundreds of years where others barely a single day, it would not be felt as ‘merely a day’ or ‘a long century’ because generally speaking time is felt subjectively apart from the physical measurement of time. We know this when we are young and developing, the days drag when we wait for a special event or fly by in ‘holiday’ time.

I don’t understand about arguing for ‘the value, or lack of value, of life’. Without life there is no ‘value’ and what you may or may not call a ‘mistake’ in such abstracted universal terms is utterly meaningless.

Life as a human item has many fluctuated somewhat over human history. In terms of sacrificing human lives it could be argued that life was so valued that offering up a human life meant it was given more value than in times where life isn’t so readily sacrificed.

As for arguments that value is relative that doesn’t much help matters as we then need to address relative to what and how relative it is to said item/s. In the current era we live in this is further complicated by our cultural need to measure and log things. The power and understanding measuring items has given us (in terms of knowledge and insight) is so ubiquitously useful that we do perhaps over apply it (heuristic blindness). Meaning when measuring as a cultural and scientific practice has led to so many benefits it can become increasingly hard to recognise/register when/if such a heuristic is in fact utterly useless and misplaced.

For example, I can value certain things like a painting or a sunset, yet to measure such a value against other things lacks any universal constant and moreover lacks any real way of determination. I have noted to friends that I would rather lose my right hand than my sense of taste and I truly believe this … yet if by some extraordinary circumstances this hypothetical became a reality would I actually opt for losing my hand or am I just kidding myself? The value is therefore based on subjective appreciation of reality and no matter how much someone may tell me that x is worth more than y I am not simply going to agree when my personal position says otherwise.

care to expand on that with your own take away on what you’ve read?

Pretty much every religion would say the same, so no, I don't agree.

Cheap energy. Prior to covid a million a year died in India due to starvation/malnutrition. A huge swathe of the population has fallen into poverty now due to lockdowns. Cheaper energy will help them get back on track.

Indians.

Humans can be describes as having an inherent need to refer to every item of experience as an ‘either or’ dichotomy purely because it allows us to navigate through the world not because there is any concrete distinction. When opposing forces collide we either ignore it, don’t notice it or create a new dichotomy from it (aka a paradigm shift).

As in conflict with the US? Yeah, highly unlikely. China conflict with other nations is probably not massively likely either. From here on in we’re more likely to see nations crack under their own social strain with maybe the odd mini invasion here and there, but overall all nations will necessarily dissolve and humanity will shift perspectives to a different social paradigm.

And we’re still waiting for Cold War number 1 to end

Numbers are universal. Opinions are not. Meaning if we talk about the number 5 we don’t tend to disagree about which number 5 we are talking about nor do we disagree about what ‘about’ or what ‘or’ we’re referring to - we don’t even tend inspect the notion that there could be any difference.

I don’t believe there is a for-itself for Husserl, at least not one opposed to an in-itself. — Joshs

Agreed. He states that Intentionality is basically to be conscious direction. Consciousness cannot be directed as consciousness because that makes no sense. Consciousness can be directed at the concept of consciousness and at memories and possible futures.

As for Heidegger ‘dasein’ doesn’t mean anything as far as I can tell. In Being and Time all I found was a couple of points already made by Husserl articulated in a slightly better manner and a whole lot of fluff and needless explanation (as if he was talking to someone with little to no exposure to Husserl’s work).

What ‘belief’? Historically the idea of ‘nation,’ today, is a relatively new idea. National identity was basically framed on the language you spoke rather than the piece of land you lived on. Passports never used to exist either. These are facts not beliefs?

If you ask people in Europe whether they are European or x nationality a growing proportion of them say European first and x second. I don’t surround myself with them because I don’t live in Europe.

My observation is historical. It isn’t concrete though, but I don’t see how it is a ‘belief’ to point out that the current idea of ‘nation’ is both a recent one (developed more or less within the previous century). In terms of how populations cooperate and relate religion has reached across cultures and as organised religions have become less of a given in places like Europe - again parallel to the more solid development of the current idea of ‘nation’. It looks like the population is largely disconnected from political power, and more importantly they are more aware that they are. What follows is either splintering of the idea of ‘nation’ or a more broad and far reaching idea (like religion) that has greater reach now due to English basically being a global language and an overwhelming capacity to communicate with anyone anywhere all the time.

Something has got to give.

It wasn’t out of my control so that is a better way of expressing it. I thought ‘hyperventilating’ was also a term used for voluntarily breathing deeply/quickly as well as non-voluntary (panic attacks etc.,.).

Just like "saving the Earth", "abandoning nationhood" is only doable if EVERYONE does it. — Harry Hindu

Just watch. I’ve abandoned it and many others have too. It is only a recent idea and hasn’t been around for long anyway. You just assume it is normal because it is all you know. The population just hit a certain critical mass that made ‘nationhood’ a more wearable premise. It’s falling quickly out of fashion now and the old language barriers are falling fast too (they were the main dictates of ‘nation’ prior to borders.

Ah, very good! I must read on this. Have you a reference (Jung's collected works are voluminous)? — Michael Zwingli

Sorry. Cannot recall off the top of my head where it came from. Likely from The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious. I’ll have a quick look …

Found it! Was in Mysterium Coniunctionus:

These methods are of value only for increasing concentration and consolidating consciousness, but have no significance as regards effecting a synthesis of the personality. On the contrary, their purpose is to shield consciousness from the unconscious and to suppress it.

Note: From book ‘Jung on Active Imagination’ (p.169).

The past is determined. That much we know. What has already come to pass cannot be changed. — Benj96

Because?

With the religions you mention they all share something in common. You have one guy who had an extraordinary experience and (against their better judgement) expressed what they experienced as best they could for the benefit of others who would inevitably come after them.

Religion is an extension of ‘shamanism’. Shamanism, across the globe, shares particular defining features where shamans go through certain extreme stresses and relate their body being broken down, consumed and reconstructed. In religious traditions with whirling dervishes and flagellants pieces of such stress are induced. Just looking as Jesus, Mohammed and buddha we can see repetition of known physiological stresses that actively induce altered states of consciousness (ASCs) known to neuroscience. Examples are isolation, sleep deprivation, extreme focused thought, hyperventilation, fasting and trance dancing.

From personal experience I can say hyperventilation is something instinctual when it comes to inducing this state as I immediately started to hyperventilate ‘on purpose’ once I came out of the peak state and I had no idea why only that I was desperate to get back to it. My experience was induced by intense focus and inner battles, sleep deprivation and fasting (because I forgot to eat and sleep). Such physical stresses and strains will hit anyone with a mental sledgehammer.

It is possible I had a mini stroke maybe? Either way I’d recommend it even though it comes with necessary hell and torture. I certainly had what buddhist’s refer to as ‘ego death’. I went on to try and purposefully induce the same experience again and a year later bungled it (which I had to) and went to the most ‘hellish’ place imaginable that gave me perspective. What this taught me was how memories are very selective and I recalled several episodes from my past I had buried away. I also recalled the full pain of first experience I had but it was still outweighed by the benefit.

The closest I’ve come to explaining this is to come to the conclusion that it was DMT naturally produced in my brain (how I’ve no idea). I say this because reports from trails, and from others who’ve taken ayahuasca, are as close to what I can find that expresses what I experienced. The potential and power of this is not really something I can express (nor fully believe anymore), but I did make myself remember beyond doubt at that point exactly how ‘important’ it was.

There is a chance I am just an unusual person who had a moment of normality. If that is the case though the world would not be how it is now so I can only assume I’m relatively normal and insane like everyone else and just happened to glimpse naked sanity briefly. Now I’m just going along with the madness of everyone else because this species is still figuring itself out.

Note: I’m not a member of any temple (and never have been), both my parents are atheists and I generally abhor both states and religious institutions for the most part. My first love was physics.

I’d recommend walking meditation for an hour then sitting meditation for an hour (alternating). Minimum six hours a day and minimum of 3 hr session. If you did this for 3-4 days you’d get used to it and once you returned to your usual routine you’d certainly feel the difference in your state of mind.

Honestly, I don’t really understand how anyone expects to get anything from a few minutes a day if they have no idea what it is they are working towards. So, do the meditation full time (for a week if possible) and if you get something out of it then you’re more likely going to stick to a daily rountine.

Personally I’m with Jung when it comes to my regard for meditation. That is it is a means of building up a wall between the ego and unconscious - this might be good for some but might be bad for others.

This is fairly clear as buddhist meditations are generally about shifting attention away from unconscious items that arise rather than exploring them. Exploring them (which is not something to be taken lightly) is the process of Individuation - which is inevitably painful/scary.

I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. — Harry Hindu

The population has/is outgrowing the need for the idea of 'country'. I'm not making prediction about what will/might happen but I cannot see a way past the dissolution of the 'nation state' this century (and see it happening already).

To unite across the globe religious doctrine was used. This spread out from one place to another. Then the religious attitude declined and we're seeing a clinging to nationhood instead (as has been happening for the last century or two). Whatever remains of the nation idea after the public loses interested will basically form the next social epoch I'd say and I think we're living through the transition right now.

Yes. So abolishing political parties would be double-good in weeding out the ones that find it difficult to think for themselves from the voting system, and endowing those that do take the time to research the candidates more options. — Harry Hindu

There have been instances for governmental reform but generally they are sidelined as much as possible by those in power because it doesn't suit them.

In this instance the US when in splits (assuming it is still a powerhouse when it does) may open up a door to change. Either way I think the 'nation' is on its way out and I've little idea what will come next but technology will undoubtedly play a major role.

That isn't what I've said at all. I said that I think maybe monotheism came too soon not that it should've come before. Not that this has anything to do with evolution as you frame it (as what 'reason' there is may simply be chance because evolution isn't about some 'best path' stuff just happens and somethings don't last where others do).

My pondering was that it seems to me like polytheism is more psychologically tangible than monotheism, yet others have pointed out that monotheism does kind of present itself as Jungian Individuation to a degree (which is a fair point).

My general view is that all elements of human thought are more tangible seen as separate rather than merely a whole singular entity. It is understandable to see how altered states of consciousness can bring about a feeling of unity and how expressing this - in mythical terms - could easily be framed as a monotheistic item.

Fair enough :)