The hindsight of living with, and nearly dying from, depression starting when i was 18 is much clearer than the mindset i had during it. That is probably to be expected. Not saying that i tap dance through every day, but the depression has been gone for a long time. I would say the depression had three main aspects. Firstly, just a big bundle of unexpressed, difficult, and powerful emotions. Something inside me wasn't going to let me do anything until i dealt with some of these emotions. Before which my general attitude towards such things was along the lines of "feelings are for kids and grandmothers".

This leads into the second aspect: unintentional self-sabotage. Not saying that i or anyone else is to blame for a state of depression. But, as Wayfarer suggests above, there is at least an aspect of depression that one may have unwittingly contributed to, and (more optimistically) something(s) one can do to lessen the intensity of the suffering. Negative thinking, bad nutrition, isolation, sleep disorders, chemical dependency, etc. are going to have an effect on someone. And it most likely won't be a pleasant one.

The third aspect is kind of the wildcard. It is even more mysterious and impenetrable than the first two, because there is nothing necessarily to be done or learned or changed or expressed. One could call it the Dark Night of the Soul, as the mystics did. The only thing to do with this aspect is to simply endure it, while working on the other aspects. Isn't there a saying about depression being a natural reaction to an insane world? But perhaps some period of depression is good for a person in the long run, assuming they survive it. Soul searching, growing deeper roots, and so forth. Who knows for sure? The mind is as mysterious as the moon, on whose dark side depression dwells.

Slightly puzzled that no one has mentioned the surprisingly deep I (L) Huckabees. It is such a back and forth debate on the underlying meaning of existence that it could have been a dramatization of a Philosophy Forum thread. Except, you know... funny.

Your post almost sounds like one particular teaching of Buddhism. Maybe you are onto something! :D

Buddha taught that the eight worldly winds revolve around the world, and the world revolves around these eight worldly conditions. These eight worldly winds, or conditions, are: gain and loss; fame and disrepute; praise and blame; and pleasure and pain. And the kicker (that simultaneously confuses and comforts me) is that all these opposites are at the root all the same.

What's up, doc? ;) Those cartoons were the best. The characters were my role models growing up. Which now that i think about it, may explain some of the problems i have had, even tho i own a mansion and a yacht!

Rabbit season! Duck season! Rabbit seaon! Duck season! Rabbit season!
Rabbit season! I say its Duck season, now go ahead and shoot! Ka-Blammm!!!
Yoourrr dessspicable!
That's all folks! :D

Thank you, that is a useful distinction to make between "adversaries" and "enemies". Good to keep that in mind, and to keep the natural competitiveness of philosophical discussions within the spirit of civility and respect. And for what it is worth, imho the vast majority of the postings on this forum meet at least a baseline standard of civility and reasonableness. During times of political, social, and economic difficulties, philosophical beliefs and discussions can seem even more critical and vital. Which can be a good thing. During times of prosperity, philosophy can be a sleeping giant and its concerns may seem simply theoretical or even like a quaint logical puzzle to be solved in your leisure time. A civilization is only as strong, true, good, etc. as its foundational belief systems are. This is the underlying and hidden philosophy of a people. The work of the philosopher is to be conscious of this, bring it up for discussion, and offer considered and reasonable criticism. It would seem that there is no shortage of work to done.

Thanks, that's a good point. I definitely would think that the more extreme examples of both types of arguments could clearly be differentiated from each other, especially if viewed from a distance, in a way that pure blue is different from pure yellow for example. But then there's the green area... Like when one has started an discussion with another person quite reasonably and politely and the ideas and opinions are being exchanged rapidly, sometimes the mind starts racing and the blood pressure is rising, and so on... It can get heated quickly before either person is aware what is happening. Best case scenario at that point is both people realizing the turn things have taken, catching their breath, and apologizing for whatever was said. And since it was caught before any real harm was done, maybe they have a chuckle over it. Now is this outcome the most common occurrence in this type of situation? Maybe not. But generally, the quicker at least one person stops quarreling, the better for everybody, including passive/innocent bystanders.

(But enough about my family's holiday dinners, back to the discussion! :D )

Ah sorry old horse, I haven't been in a forum for a while. What I meant is that your proposition of a truly functioning community fails to consider time and evolutionary dynamics where we cannot separate heterogeneity as though the community could be a continuous picture, something that is only possible when we eliminate the 'individual'. This possibility of the community being continuously the same picture is what Nazism attempted to employ hence why it is dangerous. This is the thermodynamics of humanity, as it were, the entropy prohibits the reversal of the arrow of time or that systems are irreversable and that chaos increases by a perpetual motion that is unpredictable. Whenever we move to a direction of cohesiveness or equilibrium, individuality disintergrates because it is individual consciousness that is causally the root of our chaos - if you take away consciousness, we would have no language and thus be nothing but animals, but we would reach an equilibrium with nature. In a social setting, we become slaves or mindless drones.

In order to maintain individuality and form this true community, it requires consciousness of this consciousness as it were; if society is a collection of individuals, we need to ascertain what an 'individual' is first and thus it returns us back to my original argument, which is the reason why the initial conversation was about authenticity and an independent moral consciousness. We could reach this equilibrium with nature because we consciously choose to do so as we transcend our destructive unpredictability and return back to our state of nature as we become aware of ourselves and others. — TimeLine

Hello, and thanks much for your thoughtful post! Many good points, imho. And thanks for expanding on your previous post in order to help me understand your ideas. I think we are in a general accord about individuality and its related rights being extremely important, and the community existing in a quality proportional to the quality and freedom of all its individuals. You may have seen my response above to Agustino, but I'll repeat a small part:
The wellbeing between people is dependent on the harmony within each individual.
And the wellbeing within each individual is dependent on the harmony between people.

And i gave some other thoughts on that. Which is I think is generally what we are both saying... in a tiny nutshell. But please reply and explain if that is not exactly the case. And likewise, if you may disagree with my "proposition of a truly functioning community" it might perhaps be because I have not given one... yet! :D Or at least, not given an entire one. These various ideas of mine are trying to be coherent and thought-through enough to be called a proposition or a theory, but right now it is more a bundle of skepticism and critique of whatever culture is common for a large portion of so-called western civilization. (for whatever that's worth! But it definitely helps make ideas mentally clearer by writing them down on paper or computer). But i will try to expand upon that in a hopefully logical and helpful way...

Considering as you mentioned "time and evolutionary dynamics" concerning heterogeneity, diversity, and similar ideas; of course that is an intrinsic part of both nature and society. Any organized attempt to forcibly "homogenize" a nation or people is bound to be a repressive power-grab on the part of the leaders, no matter what high-minded ideology they may spout. It seems that when one person (or one small group of people) trys to grab the reigns and fashion society in their image, it goes sour quickly -imho. I quoted Daniel Quinn in a previous post; and he has many ideas about evolution. One of which may be relevant here is his idea about the strength of an ecosystem, and the natural diversity that evolution gave it. Its diversity is its strength because that how it grew. Quinn writes that when humans try to eliminate all plants and animals that are not human food or other product, it eventually destroys the very place we are living. Taking the Taoist method of looking to nature to provide humans some clues as how to live in some kind of sustainable manner, that critical need of diversity for evolution could be applied to human civilization, i believe. It is difficult to go into all possible scenarios, but the general idea of how evolution occurs is the point. But i am no evolutionary scientist... or not even a social scientist. Or nutty professor! :B

Spot on, which is why we protest in our own way despite the collective that eventually I may pave the way for someone in the next generation who will be better than me who will pave the way and so on. A tree grows. Marx was incorrect when he purported an immediacy in this change through revolution, though with our current conditions and the impact we are having environmentally, it would seem that choice is becoming limited. I still refuse to give in and consistently push myself to understand my place in this world. — TimeLine

:) Thank you very much, and likewise well-spoken. I agree that there are generally no quick fixes here, at least none that i can see. We got to this point, with all its triumph and all its tragedy, over the course of centuries and millennia. There is much all around us that is good and possesses amazing potential, in both the human and other natural realms. It is usually helpful when one acts on that, as opposed to solely focusing on the negative. But it seems there is some trait in humans to focus firstly on "problems" or to see potential hazards. When balanced, it is a trait that may have kept ancient humans alive to evolve, and possibly still helps us now.

All of this is subject to debate, of course. However, and as I imagine you would agree... impatience, blame, and rage are a volatile brew, one not to be chugged before speaking (or even thinking) about what possibly needs to be changed or improved. This brew may be a tempting and powerful concoction, but it rockets things in the wrong direction and tends to self-destruct. We are have a right to our feelings, of course. The inevitable confusion, anger, sadness, weariness, loneliness, etc. are hopefully counterbalanced by more pleasant emotions so we all can feel inspired to continue. If the evolution of the natural world is helped along by continuous and varied mutations, then perhaps the idea of "civilization" may mutate into something that works more consistently for the greater majority of the community of life.

It's all binaural beats these days! (headphones required for the complete experience)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. Very much appreciated.

This is the same point I've made before that there is a tension between the individual and society (or the family) which has to be maintained for the well-being of both.

However, it seems to me that TimeLine is fundamentally right that the individual must have "transcended to this existentiality and conscious awareness and only amongst others of the same mental state whereby they exercise this freedom together" - otherwise it becomes impossible to maintain this underlying tension. Morality cannot be a matter that the collective decides on - morality always is and must always be the relationship of an individual with reality, and the collective cannot be an individual. So whatever the collective decides on, it will be at best a replica of authentic morality and a replica is dead. — Agustino

Exactly. I think we are on the same chapter, if not the same page with the society/individual dynamic. Both are necessary for each other, and each mirrors the other. The relative mutual co-existence could possibly be expressed in this (perhaps somewhat paradoxical) twofold statement:

The wellbeing between people is dependent on the harmony within each individual.
And the wellbeing within each individual is dependent on the harmony between people.

In the above, the terms "wellbeing" or "harmony" are not specific and absolute. They could be replaced with similar words like goodness, peace, or balance. The word "dependent" could be replaced by "is helped by" or "increases". The main point is the relationship between the two halves of each statement, and between the two sentences. Hopefully, that comes across clearly.

Now, once the individual has "transcended to this existentiality and conscious awareness" he returns to society - why? Because all people thirst for community and love, especially those who are close to their own hearts. And what is the problem of the return? That the individual is now taken to be mad by the herd - thus the desire transforms into being "only amongst others of the same mental state whereby they exercise this freedom together" - Why? Because returning to the community, the individual finds he has no real freedom. Real freedom isn't merely being theoretically capable to undertake X or Y action - that's freedom only in a negative sense. The actions that the individual wants to undertake cannot be undertaken because he finds no people willing to collaborate. So freedom in community is useless unless we can "exercise this freedom" - then it becomes positive freedom. Hence the thirst for reforming society - at least if not possible at the macro level, then at least at the smaller levels - friends, family, etc. — Agustino

Both Jesus and Guatama Buddha returned to their respective societies having, as you say "transcended this extentiallity and conscious awareness". This is reminiscent of Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces, in which he describes the recurring theme of a person returning to their people after some type of spiritual awakening or experience. They return to what Campbell indicates to be a spiritual "wasteland", as exemplified by TS Eliot's poem of the same name. The "hero" is often met with resistance, violence, and possibly death. They are nonetheless undeterred, and manage to find others of a similar mind, though perhaps weaker and a bit less wise. The Buddha was not martyred, but according to the legend, stood (or should that be "sat") his ground against the forces of Desire, Hatred, and Ignorance on the night of his Awakening. One can make of that what they will. Of course, Campbell assembled an almost superhuman team that surpasses any comic book hero. But perhaps that is difficult to relate to and identity with, as inspiring as it may be.

And globalism tears down the fabric of local communities, and increases the space between people - leading ultimately to a scenario where each person becomes an island unto themselves. — Agustino

Yes, yes, yes. That is exactly what i was getting at in a roundabout way. (Though "globalism" may not be the only term one could use, it will do nicely. And for the term "communities", I would define that as "communities of life", so as to extend it to include more than humans alone, since we do not exist in a vacuum. But that is simply my wording preference.)

Thanks again for your input and insights. :)

Other?

In English we say "I am cold."
In German, it's "I have cold."
Russians say: "The cold is upon me."

Greek scholars say that Homer should be read the Russian way. All the stuff we think of as internal psychic forces is external in Homer. It's like the psyche turned inside out.

They would probably think we see ourselves as divine. — Mongrel

Thanks for sharing that excellent point. Didn't know that. I wish i had been raised with another language besides English. It might give some different perspectives, as you imply. And sometimes having another perspective can make quite a difference. Very admiring of people who speak two and three languages! (tho i has enuf trubbles wif Inglish! :D)

Well, it seems to me that in the future, without mass TV viewing to rely on, advertising is likely to be more targeted, dispersed, invasive and diverse.


More targeted.

See neuromarketing:, for example:

"Neuromarketing engages the use of Magnetic Resance Imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), biometrics, facial coding, eye tracking and other technologies to investigate and learn how consumers respond and feel when presented with products and/or related stimuli (Kolter et al., 2013). The concept of neuromarketing investigates the non-conscious processing of information in consumers brains (Agarwal & Dutta, 2015). Human decision-making is both a conscious and non-conscious process in the brain (Glanert, 2012). Human brains process over 90% of information non-consciously, below controlled awareness; this information has a large influence in the decision-making process (Agarwal & Dutta, 2015). "


More dispersed/invasive:

More on subways, buses, taxis, lifts, anywhere where people congregate. Louder, flashier etc.


More diverse:

Constant innovation. What was that movie with Cruise where he gets offered a Guinness by a hologram? Coming soon... — Baden

Yep. You ain't kidding! And that's just the stuff we know of. Who knows what else is being planned.
Do we want to know? Can we handle the truth? (to quote another Cruise movie). My knee-jerk reaction is to say, yea! bring on the truth, the more the better; i can take it. But it might be paralyzing and nauseating, beyond anything Sartre, Orwell, or others have described.

I am very suspicious of the cellphone and tablet. The phone is like a spy in my pocket, ready to rat me out in a second. The smartphone may be too clever by half. Tape covers the cameras when not in use, though I suppose the microphone theoretically could be used remotely by other parties. I hope to (insert favorite Divinity here) that I'm just being paranoid and over-imaginative. What is the term for it? Big data?

I should apologise for starting this with advertising; it has rather misled people. One can resist advertising, avoid it perhaps, but advertising is merely an example of a way of thinking about people that pervades the eduction system, politics, entertainment, the workplace, every facet of society.

Shall we start again with a different example? Psychology and education? — unenlightened

Hee hee. No, nothing to apologize about in the OP, imho. Advertising is as good a place to start digging as any other, maybe even better. Lots of interesting and half-hidden things to find here. And much invested here, as someone pointed out, both financially and otherwise. Now back to the digging!
:)

It depends on your view as to whether a community is a collection of individuals or whether it is subject to the sum of its own parts, where as you suggest there is a subsistence of an un-manipulated ‘utopian’ society that enables the group to mirror justice without being subject to time? Can this cohesive homogeneity be sustained without an evolutionary dynamic and radical unpredictability affecting the flux and dynamics of continuity and discontinuity as though the second law of thermodynamics is merely a misnomer? The heterogeneity of society cannot be separated into a continuous picture and this radical unpredictability is the very impediment of a perfect social design - hence Nazism - and any impediment to something successful requires its elimination. — TimeLine

Thanks for your reply. I would say a community is both a collection of individuals AND a whole greater than the sum of its parts, like light can be described as both a particule and a wave. But as the saying goes, five severed fingers do not make a hand. Not sure though that I quite grasped the rest of what you were saying in this quote. I don't want to assume. Can you rephrase it or dumb it down a shade? (as Homer Simpson says).

Thus the reason why we desire the community in the first place is to avoid our true nature — TimeLine

Sorry if I'm taking this sentence out of context, but this rather large claim perhaps needs more explaining before i can begin to accept it. Sure, some hardy people can live in the woods, off the grid and alone, and be quite happy. That is quite admirable. Our basic survival skills "in the wild/nature" have gotten flabby, at least for most of us. But humans don't come right out of the womb ready to run, swim, and hunt like some other animals. Some clan/tribe/community is needed, as well for the transmission of knowledge. I think you would agree with that, at the least.

I do, however, agree that there exists a possibility to reach an authentic unity but only when the individual has transcended to this existentiality and conscious awareness and only amongst others of the same mental state whereby they exercise this freedom together. Human rights and liberal democracy is as close as we could get to this but even so the traps of capitalism and globalisation far outweigh the good and to denote those who dismiss all that is wrong in this world deserve the cringeworthy title of being a part of the 'herd'. — TimeLine

Ok, it is good to hear that you think there is a possibility for unity. I'm not being sarcastic either. Sometimes i wonder if even a "disagreeable" or "minor quarreling" unity is even possible. Maybe what we see now is all that will ever be, except for the possibility of getting much worse. It is entirely possible, maybe even probable. Daniel Quinn in his books (Ishmael, etc.) brings up the example of Native American Indian tribes which were VERY territorial and would often kill trespassers on their land without question. Quinn said this is not a problem despite its rather bloody aspects, and i would agree. It held the tribes together, and was an expression of the laws of nature. The laws of nature being that which is observed to foster and continue life, both within and among the species. But that may be a little off the topic, as interesting as i may find it. But the point he makes is that a species that goes against the laws of nature might exist for a time, but even a thousand years is an evolutionally short amount of time. And to go against nature is (to borrow Agustino's phrase) to saw off the branch they are sitting on. Individuals are needed to devise alternate ideas, but without the support and action of the majority/collective, even the brightest ideas will wither on the vine.

Thank you all very much for reading this and your input. :)

Occasionally, i get the vague feeling of living in some dystopian amalgamation of the scenarios of Orwell's 1984, The Lord of the Rings, The Terminator, and Pink Floyd's The Wall.

But then i take my anti-depressant pill, and then the tv stops trying to control me and all is calm once again. For awhile.

[(please imagine this being spoken very rapidly, so as to avoid comprehension) Some side effects may include... Serotonin Syndrome: A potentially life-threatening problem that can happen when medicines such as (X) are taken with certain other medicines. Symptoms may include agitation, hallucinations, coma or other changes in mental status; problems controlling movements or muscle twitching, stiffness or tightness; fast heartbeat, high or low blood pressure; sweating or fever; nausea, vomiting or diarrhea.
Abnormal bleeding or bruising: (X) and other serotonergic antidepressant medicines may increase your risk of bleeding or bruising, especially if you take the blood thinner warfarin (Coumadin®, Jantoven®), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), or aspirin. Manic episode: Symptoms may include greatly increased energy; severe trouble sleeping; racing thoughts; reckless behavior; unusually grand ideas; excessive happiness or irritability; talking more or faster than usual. Visual problems: May include eye pain, changes in vision, swelling or redness in or around the eye. Only some people are at risk for these problems. You may want to undergo an eye examination to see if you are at risk and receive preventative treatment if you are. Low salt (sodium) levels in the blood: Symptoms may include headache; difficulty concentrating, memory changes or confusion; weakness and unsteadiness on your feet; and in severe or sudden cases hallucinations, fainting, seizures or coma. If not treated, severe low sodium levels can cause death... and so on and so forth... ]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OlrcbKlW4Tw&t=58s

With your ear down to the ground... i hear a very gentle sound...
:D

Thank you very much for the thoughtful reply. And welcome to TPF! :)

↪0 thru 9
Not sure about the phrasing mortal existence, ‘tis somewhat Highlanderish what with our mortal sins n’all, — TimeLine

I was just trying to focus on our current existence, as opposed to any possible afterlife. Probably was not critical that i made that distinction though.

↪0 thru 9

The Hobbesian fear of punishment has transformed from an authority to a social form of punishment; by developing a universal conception of an ‘individual’ deviation from mass opinion is minimised since what the bourgeoisie require is the power to control in order to maintain sustainable capital. Under the conditions where people assume they are making their own decisions, disciplinary conditions and thus the threat of being subordinated is no longer applicable as the slave ‘wants’ to be the slave, preventing the possible outbreak of any Nietzschean ressentiment. Should a mind become rehabilitated enough to desire escape – thus forming the first instance of authenticity [see Heidegger] which is basically the authentic Self or where one becomes conscious of freewill – their entire identity is at risk due to the entrenched and powerful social conditions that has normalised its coercive techniques to impose conformity. That is, they forfeit their true nature for the herd. — TimeLine

Well said, and I generally agree. I would add if i may that those in control of others (bourgeoisie, to use your term) are quite clever in their near-sighted greed, and do not wish to have a united mass of people to deal with. Conformity without cohesion is what I imagine they desire in their "subjects". (I cringe slightly at the term "herd" when used to describe conformity, because of the sub-human connotation of that word. Still it is not as bad as the word "sheeple", which is a tad smug, imho.) Based on the general modus operandi of those wishing to impose their will on the populace, the strategy of "divide and conquer through isolationism" seems to be most effective. We are told and sold how individual, separate, unique, amazing, and stunning (this seems to be a popular phrase, along with "jaw-dropping") we are at our core. We just need a little help (in the form of whatever it is they are selling, be it product or idea) to reach fully blossomed self-hood, so we can proceed to market our identities and inspire others to do the same. Individualism, once a noble goal of mature psychological growth, has been turned against us and used as a lever to separate and control. And the more competitive and ambitious a person is, the harder it may be to resist. The bloody circus of modern UFC "gladiators" has entered our blood and minds, it seems. If you can kick everyone's ass, then you will be dominant and get all the goodies. (The promoters would probably say that they didn't write "the law of the jungle". They just take it to absurd extremes for our amusement.)

To be clear, i am definitely NOT advocating any loss of individual rights, personal abilities, or self-improvement. Those are wonderful things worth holding onto, of course. I am proposing that we in modern Western civilization, have most likely never experienced living in a truly functioning community. Thus, even the word "community" seems quaint, if not naive and vaguely utopian. To move in the direction of some type of unity and cohesion, but of our own free choosing -unmanipulated by others-
may be what we unconsciously hunger for.

(Easier said than done, of course. Sorry for getting on the soap box! ) :)

(Posted this in another forum without much feedback, but it may apply to this discussion.)

To consider self-esteem, one could first consider the very concept of "self".

Which brings to mind this quote from Dogen: “To study enlightenment is to study the self; to study the self is to forget the self; to forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the body and mind of others drop away. No trace of realization remains and this no trace continues endlessly.”

This may seem all well and good for Zen masters or practicing Buddhists or maybe magickal wizards, but what practical use is that in real life? (one could ask). To continue the thoughts i wrote in the first response in this thread, any steps to re-balance the ego (that which is one's sense of self) will more than likely yield positive results. It is not an all-or-nothing affair where one is trying to lose, or worse yet "kill", the ego. Some gentle and gradual reducing may help, though. The ego can become inadvertently enlarged, much like our bodies or the pile of our possessions can. There seems to be something in the human mind that likes to grab and hold onto things to fill the void. This can be natural and healthy, like eating when hungry. But it quickly can go to extremes, that much seems self-evident. At least it relates to my experiences both past and present in attempting to find the balance points. When applied to the body, it can lead to a toxic obesity and ill health. With possessions, it may manifest as extreme hoarding.

"A ping pong ball on the ocean"...

But when it is the self itself trying to hyper-expand to fill the void and deal with a sense of emptiness, it is harder to deal with because it is not visible. Not visible, but existent nonetheless. A feeling of disconnection and isolation from other humans and the rest of the world is perhaps one of the most common feelings. (There have been several recent threads concerning this isolation and feeling of solipsism such as: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/776/the-isolation-of-mind/p1 ). When one feels as separate, small and powerless as a ping pong ball floating on the ocean, it seems like we are battered about at the mercy of the wind and waves. The first inclination might be to do something like the expression "go big or go home". But if one completely identifies with the Isolation, and believes that they are totally separate from everything else, "going big" might just make the situation worse. Instead of being a "ping pong ball self" floating on the ocean, there is a "beach ball self" floating on the waves.

Well, the "beach ball self" is definitely bigger. Sometimes in certain circumstances bigger is better, but sometimes not. The reflexive habit to expand our identity while keeping the walls of that identity air-tight can lead to a ballooning effect. The more air pumped into a balloon, the larger it becomes. But the air pressure is also increased which may lead to a sense of tightening constriction. The larger an inflated balloon becomes, the thinner its skin is. This makes it more vulnerable to pinpricks and the like. A beach ball on the ocean may have lots of room to bob about. But imagine a room filled with many beach balls, all inflated to the max. They are "feeling" (so to speak) internally pressured from the air, and externally pressured from all the other beach balls pushing against their thin vulnerable surfaces. One can then imagine the sorts of dynamics and conflicts arising from this hypothetical situation. This describes in a very general way many of the interactions around us, imho.

Those who say that this situation is the way things are and is unavoidable, and it boils down to "survival of the fittest" are probably concerned with becoming the largest beach ball on the block, while trying to deflate their competition.

And there are those who know this dynamic exists, but are looking for other ways of existing. Those that look long enough might find something.

Thanks for your consideration of these ideas. Hope they are as helpful to read as they were for me to write. Any feedback is welcome.

I have a suspicion or hope that those who have already passed away, wherever they are, call those still living here on earth "the dead".

Does atheism completely preclude any kind of reincarnation? I can vaguely imagine a non-theistic rebirth scenario.

Lol! Thanks. Humor is the social lubricant. And who doesn't enjoy a good lubricant now and then? :D

About the "like button" thingy discussion...

I have seen some forums (fora? :B ) where there was the ability to "thank" a person for their post. Also, there was an indication of how many times a person "was thanked", and how many times they "thanked" someone else. I thought that is good way to go. But i know that the moderators can only make suggestions to the developers of this forum. But i really enjoy the format, appearance, and usability of this forum. Very enjoyable. Love the auto-save feature when writing posts, which prevents much aggravation when a long draft is lost. (L)

How would you compare/contrast pessimism with philosophical skepticism? It seems skepticism has a firmer philosophical tradition than mere pessimism, imho.

Maybe there could be a progression away from optimistic idealism. Starting with Skepticism going to atheism then to pessimism then to cynicism and finally to nihilism. The only positions beyond nihilism that i can think of are Wall Street banker or national politician. :D

It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine). :-d (and getting deep REM sleep)

Hey, thanks! Great responses and insights. You get to pick the next chapter to discuss! (Y)
(Well, actually anyone can pick any chapter they want. But a good answer deserves a prize.)
:D

The Ego.

This subject always perplexes me. I get the gist of Freud's system of Id, Ego, and Super-ego. If i recall correctly from my scant reading most of the problems Freud described came from the clash of the Ego with the Id and Super-ego. But of course, there are other definitions of "ego" other than his. What is your definition? When is the ego good and when is it bad? Or is it always the same? Can it be too big or too small? Where does it fit in with the rest of our mind? And maybe most importantly, do we control it, or does it control us?

With Yin being their left wing, and Yang their right,
The harmonious one lifts the world up into flight.

Well, seeing that it seems that everything can be turned into a competition... and then a reality show with a panel of snooty judges, invariably including one judge from England... certainly. Yes, a debate can become a bitter win/lose ordeal where actually everyone loses, including the readers of said debate. I've noticed on this forum, the subject of "logic" tends to get competitive, with lots of algebraic looking statements and my eyes glazing over. Now, when the discussion is going back and forth, with polite disagreements, humor, insights, and sound reasoning; then it can be an inspired thing of beauty.

Know the male,
yet keep to the female:
receive the world in your arms.
If you receive the world,
the Tao will never leave you
and you will be like a little child. Know the white,
yet keep to the black:
be a pattern for the world.
If you are a pattern for the world,
the Tao will be strong inside you
and there will be nothing you can't do. Know the personal,
yet keep to the impersonal:
accept the world as it is.
If you accept the world,
the Tao will be luminous inside you
and you will return to your primal self. The world is formed from the void,
like utensils from a block of wood.
The Master knows the utensils,
yet keeps to the the block:
thus she can use all things.
-chapter 28

Every year, every month, every day, every nanosecond is a brand new block of wood to carve. What will we make with it now?

Peace, health, sustenance, and blessings to all beings in this new year! May all without exception be filled with wisdom, love and compassion. (L)

Yes, why make it a poll? Who likes to be, er, polled? :-O
I think we've had enough elections for a while. Just state your preferences, and why they are meaningful to you.

Sometimes one feels like a piece of wooden furniture. Strong, sturdy, and well-made, but covered with about five layers of sloppily applied paint. How good it would feel to strip the layers off or be dipped in an acid bath to dissolve the paint. Or so one sometimes feels...

!o! Grandma only ever had your best interests at heart! :D

Probably it was only a matter of time before the practice of "political spinning" found its way into every crevice of our little world.

Request for 2017 and every day: Gimme some truth.

(i know, i know... what IS truth? Maybe starting with one foot in the vicinity of "facts" and the other foot planted in "good intentions" is a decent start. ;) )

:D Probably! I was picturing old cold war propaganda about communist countries how everything was bland, boring, and state-approved. With a constant lack of toilet paper. While in the West it was one never-ending party for everybody with MTV, beer, and supermodels of course!

I talk to myself all the time.
— m-theory

Quite so. It's often the only way to have a conversation with someone intelligent. — Bitter Crank

Or at the very least have a patient listener who never disagrees and laughs at my obscure jokes! Though there are some sensitive topics I don't bring up with myself until i've had some wine... :D

Thanks very much for your reply and insights. I will check out those books. I had the one on Shakespeare, but may have donated it to clear space! Recovering bookaholic here. Was reading Thomas Metzinger's very interesting The Ego Tunnel http://polatulet.narod.ru/dvc/tmet/the_ego_tunnel.html

I'm being completely hypothetical on whether the hyper-individualism has reached a pathological stage, or is rapidly approaching one. It is not that people are any better or worse than at others times in history, though im not sure how one would begin to measure that. It seems as though countless forces are trying to manipulate, divide, and conquer us. A scared and unhappy consumer is prolific consumer. People buy more when they are feeling unwell, whether physically or psychologically. All those things you learned in school about advertising and marketing manipulations are now taken to the n'th degree. There are some devious tricks we probably don't even know about. We are bereft of a tribe so we look for a sports team, political party, or other brand to find a semblance of a community.

You mentioned China and freedom. We in the West probably picture faceless and countless drones milling about doing their boring routines, never feeling highs or lows or much of anything. But even this image is most likely derived from advertising and movies. Nonetheless, the West would not likely adapt well to such a lifestyle. There has to be a happy medium between that blandness and everyone in their own wi-fi bubble cell, reaching out to others mostly when there is a chance that it could go viral.

In Self we trust?

Question: has the belief in a completely separate Self become the dominant paradigm in our culture? Is it now the foundation of practically all current societal systems (government, industry and commerce, education, etc.)?

By "completely separate self" i mean that people are completely isolated at their core from other people and other things. People and things may interrelate, but are always apart and separate in a radical way. For example, five marbles in a bowl are related but completely separate. By contrast, the five fingers of a hand have some separation, but also some commonality.

(Some ideal/optimistic/possibly Utopian foundations would be things like democracy, freedom, equality, peace, love, family, abundance, truth, beauty, divine worship, goodness, etc. The more cynical/pessimistic/pragmatist view is that money, gold, power, natural resources, military might, sexual conquest, fame etc. make the world go round.)

The question here is whether the belief in the separate self now transcends and underlies all of those things?

If no, what is the underlying (perhaps hidden) foundational belief of our current culture? Is it a combination of factors, and is it relative to the particular place? What happens to an person when they believe they are completely isolated?

If yes (the separate Self belief is foundational), is that a good thing, a bad thing, or somewhere in between?

If it is seen as a positive, how so? Is it that our culture as a whole has caught up to the realities of science, and with the technological tools now available, is finally shaking off the centuries of superstitions that inhibited the full flowering of the individual?

If it seen as at least potentially negative, how so? Is the embracing of the separate self ideal ironically at odds with individual rights, in the long run?

After years of reading the work of people trying to define the Divine, and trying it myself this way and that... It reaches a point where it all seems like hubris at best. Power-grabbing manipulation of others at worst. This is excepting what someone prays in their heart or whispers at their sacred shrine. That is deeply personal territory and experience beyond judgment. But when there is a loud call for consensus, it is more like conformity and control than unity or brother/sisterhood. Dice doesn't play g-d with the universe. And perhaps neither should we.

Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone! :D