1.

Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it. — Amity

Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend. — Amity

2.

Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out. — Amity

Like you, I must go down as the human beings say, to whom I want to
descend. — Amity

In 2. there is a footnote for 'I must go down'.
Starts: 'German uses untergehen, literally “to go under” for the expression the sun “goes down.” Nietzsche throughout Zarathustra uses wordplay to signify that Zarathustra’s “going under” is a “going over” or transition, ubergehen ¨ , from human to superhuman, from man to overman...'

So far, I prefer 2. less archaic and flows better. Less blank spaces to jump over...
The translation recommended by @Fooloso4 :up:

Is that the translator you prefer? — Tate

Hi there - a suggestion for choice of translator.
Why not pick a passage in each of the online versions to compare.
Readability and pleasing aesthetics?

1. Thomas Common - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm

When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,—and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:

Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!

For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.

But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it.

Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.

I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.

Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!

Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.


2. Adrian Del Caro - http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf


When Zarathustra was thirty years old he left his home and the lake of
his home and went into the mountains. Here he enjoyed his spirit and
his solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last his heart
transformed, – one morning he arose with the dawn, stepped before the
sun and spoke thus to it:
“You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those
for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired
of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake.
But we awaited you every morning, took your overflow from you and
blessed you for it.
Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out.
I want to bestow and distribute until the wise among human beings
have once again enjoyed their folly, and the poor once again their wealth.
For this I must descend into the depths, as you do evenings when you
go behind the sea and bring light even to the underworld, you super-rich
star!
Like you, I must go down as the human beings say, to whom I want to
descend.

I can't access that website. Which translator is it?
— Tate
That's odd. Translated by Adrian Del Caro, edited by Del Caro and Robert Pippin — Fooloso4

I accessed the pdf without a problem, ignoring the warning triangle ( !) and the 'Not Secure'.
Some scrolling down, through the Intro and Further Reading, before you can dive into the book at p49/318 pdf pages.

Given that I've tried and failed to read this monster, I would follow any discussion with interest.
As @Paine pointed out:

Book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum. — Paine

Is it necessary to read the Intro first?

All the best :cool:

... and the movement of 'Opinion' back to General Discussion.
Thanks, Michael :up:

I think it's vastly improved in terms of philosophical content. I'll leave the rest to Michael. But well done! — Baden

Thank you.
I appreciate the positive feedback...

I am grateful for all the positive, philosophical and constructive comments in the thread.
You went with the creative, conversational flow :up:
It's my fault that they are stuck in the Lounge.
Unless I can re-write the OP to suit TPF requirements.

Not sure how to do that as yet...or even if it is worth it. — Amity

@Baden and @Michael
I have attempted an Edit of the OP which involved moving things around a bit.
Had to delete some posts so hope the thread now makes sense.
The philosophical content improved?

Grateful for further feedback, thanks.

@Michael
Thank you too for further feedback, following PM conversation.

I have edited the OP as follows:
[ Edit: this OP might be re-written at some future point, given that it is not obviously philosophical and contains metaphors - the reason the thread was moved to The Lounge ]

Also, removed the YouTube videos.

I am grateful for all the positive, philosophical and constructive comments in the thread.
You went with the creative, conversational flow :up:
It's my fault that they are stuck in the Lounge.
Unless I can re-write the OP to suit TPF requirements.

Not sure how to do that as yet...or even if it is worth it.

Now, moving on.

Thank you for that welcome feedback.

Tears of Laughter. Heaps good :fire:

Now, we'd better call a halt to all this mania...
Until later :flower:

That is your opinion?
So wrong.
Come on.
Fortes fortuna iuvat :strong:

It was rhetorical! He didn't expect an answer. I didn't provide one; too dumb! — Agent Smith

OK. But that was then, what would you say now?
Perhaps take a moment or two, in silence. To consider...

Dan Dennett's Opinion on Rhetorical Questions:

5. Rhetorical Questions –> Who could doubt the prominence of this rhetorical device? (Sorry, I’ll stop.) Using rhetorical questions in arguments is extremely common, as it represents the author’s inability or laziness to flesh out the counter-argument in question. Dennett recommends we look for an unobvious answer to it and surprise our interlocutor with it so as to defuse the power of the rhetorical question. — Philosophy In Seconds - Dennett's Anti-Thinking Tools for Better Thinking

Like this young fellow once asked my views on a certain scenario that involved a beautiful flower dead center in a nest of vipers. The objective: Retrieve the flower without getting killed. — Agent Smith

So, did you show how to appreciate the flower in the moment.
Or did you cut the vipers down...

Metanoia! — Agent Smith

I want some of that. :cool:

Although.
I think I might have had a slurp before... :chin:
Best wishes :pray:

Keeping it real :up:

Opinions, are they then utterly useless? No, not if you wanna know how a person thinks, what a person knows, who s/he breaks bread with, and so on. — Agent Smith

Indeed. Without opinions TPF would be an arid desert.
They are an expression of what we think we think or know and are open to challenge by ourselves and others.
It's how we cut into them that's interesting, don't you think?
It depends on underlying assumptions whether an opinion is seen as useless or helpful, no?
A careful analysis pre, during and post-conversation can be illuminating or...see bolds.

What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum?
— Amity

In the cited article Reeve defines it as "how to ask and answer questions". We may ask, in turn, what is the goal and what is the result of such inquiry? Socrates used it to demonstrate that one does not know what he assumed to know. This may lead to quite different results - anger, shame, resentment, or, as Socrates hoped, the desire to know, to a dissatisfaction with opinions. But this, in turn, can lead to a dissatisfaction with philosophy itself, to misologic, when it fails to provide the answers expected of it. — Fooloso4

Th-th-th-that's all folks. — Porky the Pig

You wot, got no Youtube video? :wink:

Good to talk with you. Take care :sparkle:

Yes, and @Michael that is why a thread on opinion (onions) does not belong in the Lounge. It is of central philosophical concern. — Fooloso4

Thank you for spelling it out in your post and at the end. :sparkle:
You are a shining example of a philosopher. In my opinion :wink:
As are all the participants in this thread, naturally! :nerd:

Have been thinking about this, and just now got around to answering... — Hanover

Thank you. Worth the wait.

So yeah, that lyric means a lot to me. And that it's part of a song that wishes someone was here, who critically is gone, well that's another story, but part of what it means to be at it without much else to lose, dependant only on what you've got right then and there. Not having to cling to anything at all. — Hanover

There's always another story...more lyrics which mean a lot, in different ways.

A ramble I know, but maybe that adds clarity. Or not. But that's what I heard when I heard the song. — Hanover

You should know me by now. I love a good ramble and listening to another do the same :hearts:

You came to the right place, for I too am an expert on love. — Fooloso4

The question is: What is the right place? The Lounge?
Well, we are here now, so let's dance as if we were at a Symposium, talking love.

The article compares Socrates' claim in the Symposium with his claim in the Apology, but it is not only the seemingly contradictory claims but the occasions during which he made them that should be considered. Being on trial in a court of law and a contest of speeches about eros are very different occasions requiring different ways of speaking. — Fooloso4

Yes. Different occasions, or places, sometimes require different ways of speaking or writing.
Responding to a serious life-threatening judgement or opinion from a High Court needs clear thought and careful analysis.
Responding to a group of male friends at an informal Symposium, is a lighter affair.
Each taking turn to offer his opinion...and competing for first place...I would like to have been there!

This contest mirrors that of the contest between philosophy and poetry. It is the poets who claim to be experts on love. For Socrates to claim to be an expert in the presence of highly regarded poets was both surprising and provocative. In addition, Socrates was not, as it is commonly understood, an erotic man. — Fooloso4

So, Socrates is not supposed to know about love because he is a philosopher?
Incredible.

But how different are Socrates' claims in the Apology and Symposium? As Socrates says in the Symposium, eros is the desire for what one does not possess. Philosophy is erotic in that it is the desire for wisdom. It is Socrates' lack of knowledge, as professed in the Apology, that is the basis of his knowledge of eros, the desire to know. — Fooloso4

Eros, then, is the desire to know the knowledge that one does not have.
If someone asks "What is philosophy?", how surprised would they be if told that it's 'Erotic!'
Great PR, no?

Knowledge of ignorance is not simply recognizing one does not know. Socrates' "human wisdom" is a matter of the examined life, of how best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. The "art of love", ta erôtika, is the art of living. Since we all desire what is good, the art of living cannot simply be the philosophical life. — Fooloso4

How best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. That is the question.
The examined life provides the answer?
This reminds me of another thread I started about paying attention.
What we pay attention to is important.
What or whose opinion matters?
So many strong and opposing opinions formed; how do we cut through them with care?
On a philosophy forum, that should be easy, no?
To give serious consideration to different views on e.g. what constitutes philosophy.

Are you certain that 'we all desire what is good'?
I suppose so, if 'what is good' is open to question.

When you say that 'the art of living cannot simply be the philosophical life' do you mean that the philosophical life is narrower than the art of living?
What if philosophy is seen as the art of living?

In the Phaedo Socrates says that philosophy is the practice of death and dying, the separation of body and soul. The joke here being that the only good philosopher is a dead philosopher. More serious is the question of the relationship between life and death, body and soul. I have discussed this here — Fooloso4

I remember that discussion well :clap:
What made you bring that into this conversation about opinion?
Perhaps, the question and differing opinions as to what philosophy is about?
Not just a body of work but a creative spirit. Both joined and equally important.

We are not souls temporarily attached to bodies. We are ensouled bodies. One thing not two. Desire does not cut along the distinction between body and soul. Since we know nothing of death, preparation for death turns from unanswerable questions of death back to life, to how we live, here and now. — Fooloso4

I agree. And all becomes clear, thank you.
How we live, here and now.
Knowing or learning what is important; to choose who best to converse with, about what and how.

***

What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum?
— Amity

In the cited article Reeve defines it as "how to ask and answer questions". We may ask, in turn, what is the goal and what is the result of such inquiry? Socrates used it to demonstrate that one does not know what he assumed to know. This may lead to quite different results - anger, shame, resentment, or, as Socrates hoped, the desire to know, to a dissatisfaction with opinions. But this, in turn, can lead to a dissatisfaction with philosophy itself, to misologic, when it fails to provide the answers expected of it. — Fooloso4

Misologic. Had to look it up again...

Misology is defined as the hatred of reasoning; the revulsion or distrust of logical debate, argumentation, or the Socratic method.

Is that what you mean?
Basically, people expect answers or solutions from philosophy. When it fails to deliver certainty, then they see no use for it. Indeed, it is despised as a waste of time. Navel-gazing?

Plato or Socrates used dialogue to question assumptions on which opinions are based?
In a most entertaining play-like fashion. Asking and answering questions in different places and circumstances. Exploring and reflecting...
A bit like here?!
Dancing around the subject and object.

Philosophy is often treated as the art of argumentation - making arguments that attempt to be least vulnerable to attack, while attacking opposing positions. The limits of argument, however, are not the limits of philosophy. It is here that the "ancient quarrel' between philosophy and poetry is reconfigured. This is why the dialogues often turn from logos to mythos. The promise of dialectic in the Republic, the use of hypothesis to become free of hypothesis is itself hypothetical. The image of transcendence, from opinion to the sight of the Forms, is just that, an image. The mythic philosopher of the Republic who possesses knowledge is no longer a philosopher, that is, one who desires to know. The philosopher, like the poet, is an image maker. — Fooloso4

This final paragraph is the most relevant, in my opinion.
It highlights the source of my concern.

You describe well the art of argumentation.
The skills required are important to cut carefully without tears. But not all there is...

'The limits of argument...are not the limits of philosophy'.

Thank you, @Fooloso4.
Can we expect a thread on the Symposium? :wink:

For what it's worth, I have successfully lobbied in the past to have a thread moved back into the front page. That's another reason I think it makes sense to talk things over with the OP before that type of action is taken. — T Clark

Yes. I noticed that.
However, when I first started the thread, I wondered whether it would meet the standard.
I did consider entering it into the Lounge, such was my lack of confidence.
But then...I thought to be brave. Wow.

Let's look at the description of the Lounge as a category:

1. 'Hang out. Have a blether. Talk about kittens.'

Now:
2. 'General Discussion':
'It's philosophy but doesn't fit any of the specialisms'

1. I thought my exploration deserved more attention.
2. It depends on what you mean by 'philosophy'.

I moved it because it didn’t seem to be philosophy. Not sure what it is. — Michael

From my point of view, amongst other things, philosophy is a way of thinking about certain subjects, like meaning and value.
In this particular case, it was 'Opinion' and how it is expressed or 'cut'.
I admit I didn't follow all the rules about writing an OP.
The title a bit...er...creative...

Do we always know, or need to know or show, where we are going at the start of a thinking process?
It was a tentative exploration and a reflection.
Mine and others' ideas about Opinion and how we value or show contempt for others.
Does that help you understand better 'what it is'?

As for threads on the Front Page which aren't philosophical.
Will skip past the Shoutbox.

Let's look at another, started by admin:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/22/currently-reading

Hmmm.
Hang out. Have a blether. Talk about kittens books.
Isn't that Lounge material?

I think it would be an idea not to use The Lounge as a multi-purpose bin.

If threads aren't considered 'philosophical' by some standard (whose?) then, if there has been the slightest effort made, over 3 days with several useful comments, can we not think of a better placement?

I think my thread, despite my initial lack of confidence, deserves to be in 'General Discussion'.
I hope I've said enough to convince but hey...what will be :cool:

That of Gregory Hays or Robin Hard. They're more modern translations. Hard's contains correspondence between Marcus and Fronto, his rhetoric teacher, which are interesting. — Ciceronianus

Thank you I'll take a look.
My copy is no longer to my liking and it's a bit yellowing...

Whatever the reasons are, it has always bothered me that the OP would not be notified of the change and an explanation provided. I have been told in the past that there is no forum policy and it is left to the moderator making the change to decide whether to notify. — T Clark

Thanks for your quick response; I'm grateful for the support.
There are certainly areas which could be improved upon re the judgement calls of some mods.
I agree it would be better to have a firm policy.

I look forward to the mod's response as to the trigger...

Hammond should have spent more time playing with his organ. Get it? Tee hee. — Ciceronianus

Which translation of Meditations would you recommend?

Thanks for the useful summary of the Stoic perspective.

I later added:

*Again, not to get too academic but in practical ways relating to philo conversations... — Amity

So...
I think I need a short translation of the summary :wink:

To converse elenctically — Amity

But I suppose I should do my own homework, if I am to be virtuous :halo:

Hammond should have spent more time playing with his organ. Get it? Tee hee. — Ciceronianus

Well, no organ received...
....but yeah I did have a moan and a groan :kiss:

Thanks for such a quick and informative post reminding me again of stuff I've read and forgotten.
All good but...
...O me miserum...

You shouldn't act to please others or win their admiration; you shouldn't disturb yourself if they think ill of you. Just be virtuous, regardless of how you're perceived by others. — Ciceronianus

I'll do my berry vest :nerd:
Remind me @Ciceronianus - what is to be virtuous?*

I mean I think I'm pretty good and want to be/do good but...so do others from the opposite so-called 'vicious' end of the spectrum, don't they?
What is 'good' for the gander is not always good for the goose...and why, oh why, do we use the word 'goose' with its 'silly person' connotations...

*Again, not to get too academic but in practical ways relating to philo conversations...

Plato on Eros and Friendship

Plato’s views on love are a meditation on Socrates and the power his philosophical conversations have to mesmerize, obsess, and educate.

1. Socrates and the Art of Love
“The only thing I say I know,” Socrates tells us in the Symposium, “is the art of love (ta erôtika) (177d8–9). Taken literally, it is an incredible claim.

Are we really to believe that the man who affirms when on trial for his life that he knows himself to be wise “in neither a great nor a small way” (Apology 21b4–5) knows the art of love? In fact, the claim is a nontrivial play on words facilitated by the fact that the noun erôs (“love”) and the verb erôtan (“to ask questions”) sound as if they are etymologically connected—a connection explicitly exploited in the Cratylus (398c5-e5).

Socrates knows about the art of love in that—but just insofar as—he knows how to ask questions, how to converse elenctically. — SEP: Plato on Friendship and Eros

What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum?

I know who to ask, but will my friend @Fooloso4 respond?
And others, like @Ciceronianus....

On cutting opinion without tears, I mentioned the Principle of Charity

Marcus seems to have talked the talk but not walked the walk.
Why should I have been surprised?
Sounds like a necessary qualification to be a successful Roman Emperor.

According to Hammond's Notes (p171):
Meditations 6.53
'enter into the mind of the speaker: Compare 7.30 ('Stretch your thought to parallel what is being said. Let your mind get inside what is happening and who is doing it') and 8.61 ('Enter into the directing mind of everyone, and let anyone else enter your own').

Hammond suggests that Marcus only advocates the penetration of others' minds all the better to identify their deficiencies.
Also that Marcus just as often dismisses others' thoughts as a distraction.
(Other sections cited as evidence).

Marcus in his meditations seems to have had good intentions.
However, according to Hammond, Marcus had 'great difficulty in reconciling himself to others'.

So, is it even possible to use philosophy's 'principle of charity' to cut into others' opinions without tears?

Yes. By careful examination and questioning.
No need for knee-jerk hostility aimed at belittling so as to enhance ego or sense of superiority.
The sharpest cut is not always the cleanest...

Care for the love of philosophy. Eros.
Don't be turned away permanently by those who try to harm, including your own critical voice. Try to love again. Look closely at self and others. We can all be angels or devils.

Although I might just check up on Marcus Aurelius...again... — Amity

There's no source given in the article and I haven't found one which says to leave opinions alone.
It's not in my Penguin, Martin Hammond translation, nor in the George Long translation.
Book 6, verses 52-3 of The Meditations:

It is in our power to have no opinion about a thing, and not to be disturbed in our soul; for things themselves have no natural power to form our judgements.

Accustom thyself to attend carefully to what is said by another, and as much as it is possible, be in the speaker's mind. — Internet Classics Archive - The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

On Opinion.
I returned to the article and BTL comments.
This Guardian Pick worth considering, IMO:

Dave_P

The reason not to have an opinion on everything isn't inability to control it (I have no power to control anything in the world beyond my own actions, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have opinions), rather it's that our knowledge is incomplete, and most things aren't worth having an opinion about. I have no opinion about your team or Chet & Tiffany's latest fragrance, because they don't interest me, not that that's necessarily a safeguard against others' fixations: No, I didn't see the match.... No, really.

The worst is being confronted by people with an "opinion" that isn't their own, it's just lifted from their PM or preferred party, media commenter or online "feed". If you think I really must know your opinion, at least have one rather than regurgitating someone else's and imagining that's good enough: it really isn't. Having no opinion is better than having someone else's: I used to scoff at "don't knows" in polling, but now I respect their honesty and thoughtfulness - most of the the others don't know either, they're just going with their tribe or winging it.

Talking is better than shouting, and I've had productive conversations with people (online and in the real world) on issues where their views are radically opposed to mine - but that takes goodwill on both sides, something that's been in ever shorter supply in the age of Mr Angry. But I don't really need people in my immediate social life with obnoxious views or with whom it's impossible to discuss topics, I want people who aren't out to make the world even worse and who can sustain a civilised and perhaps occasionally interesting exchange.

Your thoughts or opinion?

I assume philosophizing is more engaged than just 'politely exchanging opinions'. — 180 Proof

For sure. Sometimes.
Including cutting as analysis with sharp knife.
As well as those who make cutting remarks. For better or worse.
So it goes.

Thanks for the :flower:
In return, feel the :hearts:

Apparently, it is when you make karmic deposits and withdrawals.
The goal is to make as many deposits as possible and as few withdrawals as needed.

How does that work?

It's like putting a spoonful of salt into a cup of water, as opposed to putting a spoonful of salt into a great river. Putting it into a cup of water makes the water undrinkable; putting it into a great river makes no discernable difference to the taste of the water. The salt here is standing for bad deeds, and the amount of water for good deeds. — baker

Putting a spoonful of salt into a cup of water might make it undrinkable but it can still be a good, bring medicinal benefits as in e.g. a gargle.

Even if were bad, isn't that more of a negative contribution or action rather than a negative withdrawal?

I suppose a withdrawal of water from a reservoir could be either a positive ( to quench thirst, satisfy demands of industry)
or a negative ( reduces amount of water available).

While we can think of it in these real or natural/physical terms, I still am unclear as to how it works, if it works, in a supernatural or spiritual way.

If you've ever apologized for something wrong that you did, or ever tried to make amends, then you were in fact relying on the workings of karma. — baker

How so?

Clever.
Pretenders Got Brass in Pocket. No doubt.

It doesn’t.

No agenda, theory, philosophy, just simply be 100% present with them. — ArielAssante

Yes, I understand that any distressed individual requires close and careful attention.
But it takes more than simply being there.
And it does involve a philosophy, way of thinking or looking at life.
That's the human element.

A counsellor's own strong beliefs in e.g. karma, God, are important to recognise and clarify.
Any strong, absolute or dogmatic belief has the potential to affect their action/reaction, even as they maintain a professional practice.
And it's not always possible to be 100% there, physically or mentally.
Counsellors can be at the end of a phone...with no visual cues...or at the end of their tether.
And so on.

My impression of Indian culture before it underwent westernisation, is that it's belief in reincarnation encouraged slower and more sustainable lifestyles, but that it's belief in karmic justice encouraged social neglect of the downtrodden. — sime

Interesting.
Do you have an example to support your impression of the effect of the reincarnation belief?
Perhaps taking care of any kind of life in the countryside because that could be your late Auntie?
I think I have a little understanding of how there would be little sympathy for the downtrodden.
After all they deserved it...right...

Question: To what extent do the metaphysical beliefs of a culture become determined by the practical necessities of it's society? Clearly they must be correlated to a certain extent, but do they converge in the long run? — sime

Good question. What are the practical needs of society? The basics as per Maslow?
If they are not met, then how would that affect any metaphysical beliefs?
Why metaphysical and not personal, economic or political beliefs...?

Unmet practical needs will lead to a less than happy populace.
How will they react? And what is the tipping point for action at individual, local or global level...?

For example, if modern society is to survive then it needs to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles together with long-term ecological investments that will benefit future generations more than today's. Does this necessity imply that society's environmentally unsustainable belief that "You only live once" will mutate towards a belief in reincarnation that encourages people to work for tomorrows generations rather than today's ? — sime

Some might question the need for survival of modern society.
Some might question the methods and whether the results would be of benefit.
It's not everyone that holds the belief; religious or selfish attitude that "You only live once" so let's party and trash the place :party:
Some want to love and live in the moment with care, still considering the future.
Some people work for themselves and future generations because they care about their families.
Nuclear and beyond.
More are becoming aware of the effects of their action/inaction only because they are seeing it.
Here and Now.

I don't think this implies a kind of spiritual awakening or belief in reincarnation.
But it might...for some...

Well, that was thought-provoking. I don't even know if what I've written makes sense.
GC has shut down. That's what happens... :yawn:

Well, from a naturalisric perspective, "the more" is woo-woo .. — 180 Proof

Yeah, I know dat cause you effected that in my GC :sparkle:

Typed in full drama mode? Are you dressed accordingly? — universeness

Of course :rofl:

"Karma" means action-reaction (i.e. cause-effect) — 180 Proof

That is a quick, easy and basic definition; virtually meaningless.
There is more to it than that. There is also the element of justice determining who we can be or become in this life, or the next.

The causal relations of personal interactions with a cycle of effects...ad nauseam.
Apparently as transactions in a 'Karmic banking system':

when you make karmic deposits and withdrawals.
The goal is to make as many deposits as possible and as few withdrawals as needed. — Amity

Still puzzling over the withdrawal side of karma.
How are these drawn down and from where?
It sounds like there is a need for a certain type of 'negative' action or reaction?
Is that right @ArguingWAristotleTiff?

I've been searching around and found this:

Karma is like opening a bank account. We have choices on how much money we want to put in to add to our balance, or how much we want to withdraw. We can choose to put different investments that result in interest to increase what we have available in our account. We can also choose to use credit card in which we pay interest on what we spend. The choice is ours to make.

Similarly, we have a karmic account. Each day we can choose whether we want to engage in thoughts, words, and deeds that are going to result in good that comes back to us. We can also engage in thoughts, words, and deeds, for which we must pay the consequences. Beyond creating good and bad karmic accounts, we can also choose to do things that create a balance of zero so that we do not have to return to this world to either reap the benefits or pay the consequences.

Everything we do is recorded in the karmic accounts. There is a strict accounting of our every thought, word, and deed. It is wise to make sure that we do not commit any actions, thoughts or words that can rebound to us with consequence. Instead we must have thoughts, words, and deeds that are good so that good can come back to us.

However, if we are on the spiritual path, we do not want to return to this world to reap the rewards of what we do. There is a better plan. We can do good, but do so without having to come back to reap the rewards. This means we are doing good in the world, but the credit is being passed on to God. We only want to accumulate spiritual benefits and the love and pleasure of God. These are termed acts that are neh-karma or karma-free.

How can this be done? We can have good thoughts, words, and deeds in life but we pass on the credit to God. We do good things because it is the right thing to do, not to make name for ourselves or earn money. We say good things to others because it is the kind and loving thing to do, just out of goodness of our heart, without expecting anything in return. We think good things about others as an expression of the spiritual love we are developing in which we recognise all people as members of the same family of God.

We still do good, but our deeds are selfless without us wanting any material rewards. We do get benefits, but they are of the spirit. These benefits come in the form of spiritual progress, the love of God, earning the pleasure of God, and the burning of our karmas without creating new ones.
— SPIRITUALLY SPEAKINGTHE PRINCIPLES OF KARMIC ACCOUNTING

https://thedailyguardian.com/the-principles-of-karmic-accounting/

So, this is the supernaturalistic or spiritual view not the naturalistic.

I am still puzzled and have questions:

If anyone holds the karmic banking system as a strong belief, how does that fit in with crisis management or counselling?
Is it used as part of the counselling process?
If so, how do you manage the acute mental health crisis of someone who cares nothing for karma?
Or is it more about the trained professional bringing a personal attitude and philosophy of kindness and loving care? In that case, what extra does karma bring to the table?

Consider the tetrapharmakos ... or cognitive behavioral therapy. — 180 Proof

Yes, that's Greek philosophy and CBT, I understand.
Where is the connection with Karma?

If it were up to me, I'd ban the Bannings thread :naughty:

Drama queens, the lot of you!

Thank you. That has given me something to think about.
The pleasure angle I hadn't considered.
I'd been thinking along the lines of banking of good deeds for some future reward. Benefit.
And confused about the meaning and method of 'taking as few withdrawals as needed'. Cost.

That model could make for a pretty good hedonic philosophy: The art of deriving maximum pleasure with minimum consequence. — Yohan

Is that karma, though?

But were you looking for every day example, or were you asking about withdrawing from past lives and depositing for future lives? — Yohan

I am looking for what it means in the here and now, the practical world.
For example, how does that fit in with crisis management or counselling?

Well, at least I know what I don't know — 180 Proof

Well, at least I now know that you know what you don't know.
Is there anything else that you know that you don't know that I should know? :smirk:

Never mind, it's all a load of bull anyway...but I was trying to keep an open mind and let someone blow the woo mist away. A mystery it can remain :sparkle:

Sorry, that woo is above my pay grade — 180 Proof

You don't know your woo?
I was counting on you :groan:

"You make your own karma". For the most part, seems like the current concept of karma is as a system of reward and punishment wherein "good deeds" are rewarded and "bad deeds" are punished. In conjunction with reincarnation, individuals ultimately get "what they deserve". — ThinkOfOne

And that's what I find troubling.
When people only do good for some future reward, not for 'good in itself'.
And some are judged as deserving of their illness or misfortune because they must have been bad in a previous life. 'What goes around comes around'.
The linked concept of reincarnation I find unacceptable.

I interpret "karma" in a pragmaticist's way (re: Peirce, Dewey): actions-reactions where the reactions are – become – good/bad habits, or virtues/vices (i.e. adaptive/maladaptive), in which the latter are self-immiserating (i.e. "dukkha") in the long run. — 180 Proof

That makes more sense to me. A practical life philosophy. Being more of a help than a hindrance.

Can you @180 Proof or anyone explain to me the belief in the 'Karmic banking system'?
@ArguingWAristotleTiff spoke of it recently in the Shoutbox.
It's the first I've heard of it.

Apparently, it is when you make karmic deposits and withdrawals.
The goal is to make as many deposits as possible and as few withdrawals as needed.

How does that work?