:up: Yes, amen. At least in the USA, there seems to be collusion between the two main parties, who shall remain nameless (if not blameless). I have long admired countries that have numerous political parties with a relative equilibrium of power. England and Germany, for example. However, my view from the nosebleed section of the peanut gallery may be mistaken.

Also mistaken may be my opinion that the best thing to happen to Christianity was becoming Rome’s official religion. Which gave it protection and helped it spread. And I feel that the worst thing to happen in the history of Christianity was becoming Rome’s official religion, for it then answered to a new and worldly master.

“Hollywood is a place where they'll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss and fifty cents for your soul. I know, because I turned down the first offer often enough and held out for the fifty cents.”
― Marilyn Monroe

"How sad it is! I shall grow old, and horrible, and dreadful. But this picture will remain always young. It will never be older than this particular day of June. . . . If it were only the other way! If it were I who was to be always young, and the picture that was to grow old! For that-for that-I would give everything! Yes, there is nothing in the whole world I would not give! I would give my soul for that!" Chapter 2, pg. 29

“His unreal and selfish love would yield to some higher influence, would be transformed into some nobler passion, and the portrait that Basil Hallward had painted of him would be a guide to him through life, would be to him what holiness is to some, and conscience to others, and the fear of God to us all. There were opiates for remorse, drugs that could lull the moral sense to sleep. But here was a visible symbol of the degradation of sin. Here was an ever-present sign of the ruin men brought upon their souls." Chapter 8, pg. 108

- Oscar Wilde, from The Picture of Dorian Gray, previous two quotes.

:up: Wow, thanks! Hadn’t heard of that site. And free is good. Bookmarked. :smile:

Sometimes I think listening to spoken words, be it poetry, stories, or history, taps into something primal within us. The million years of humanity being an oral culture before the invention of writing. Stories of the world and the gods told around a fire. Movies, for better or worse, may serve that function for us now. :fire:

It is a 81-place tie for which is my fav chapter. Just kidding! :wink: it depends on the day and season, the situation, the mood.

Like a well-stocked toolbox, each chapter and verse perform a useful function. Some more or less specific, but all clear and brilliant yet mysterious. Mysterious and deep, but one senses the desire to share deep truths as directly as possible. So concise but still poetic, not a word wasted. It is a recipe book for life. Any fault in my actions results from a failure to understand or follow the Tao. But thankfully, it forgives and is ready with a helping hand.

Chapter 13 as translated by Mitchell is a favorite. It addresses the existential questions. Who am I? What is not I? What is good for this being called I?

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it, your position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.

What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?

See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.

Hey everyone! Love the Tao Te Ching :hearts: , especially Ursula’s translation. Anyone heard her audio version of it? The combination of her wonderfully expressive and quirky voice and the background Chinese Instruments is perfect. I have the tape in my car, and play it to keep calm and focused while driving. I just checked, unfortunately it is NOT in iBooks as an audiobook, though there are other TTC audios available. Kindle seems to have it only as text. Also love Jacob Needleman’s narration of the Tao Te Ching, as translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English. Stephen Mitchell brings a modern feel to his translation and reading, which i also like. Something about me hearing it, rather than reading it, just makes it more powerful, meditative, and immediate.

A theory on the matter referred to in the OP, and the contingent factors, that is persuasive to me, is as follows... In the struggle between the so-calleds “Left” and “Right”, the eventual victim are facts, as has been widely noted. But the first victim is a sense of fairness, commonality, and compassion in the heat of the clash and debate. And as such, sucks the heart and soul out of any subsequent religious activity. What is left on both sides is mostly a self-righteous shell.

The dinner-table talk taboo, part one: Politics. Opinions and fertilizer, ahoy!

Firstly, the Left confuses mere conservatives with neo-conservatives (including their corporate enablers). Conservatives tend to be traditionalist, mostly religious ie Bible-based Christian, supportive of smaller government, want to take care of USA’s problems before tending to others’, etc. Neo-conservatives tend to want to take over the entire world, or support doing such. Only they would say that they are not “taking over” the entire world, they are “taking care of” most of the world... all while helping the homeland. And doing it ever so dutifully, efficiently, and wisely. (As they themselves might add).

Secondly, the Right confuses liberals (those in favor of progressive policies and larger government) with the so-called dregs of society: the stupid, the godless / the damned / devil-worshippers, the weak and wimpy, the fiscally incompetent, the enemy sympathizer, the... (the list kind of goes on and on) ... the pinko commie, the druggie, and the career felon.

But the unsurprising fact is that there are would-be world dominators AND criminal dregs... ON BOTH SIDES! Both white-collar criminals and common street criminals on both ends of the political spectrum, and in between. Shocking, I know.

But these criminals and potential criminals really are a small percentage of the population. The greater majority of adults who have any kind of political knowledge fall roughly into two categories: the unrelenting warriors; and those that are sick and bone-tired of this long and incipient civil war.

Correct me if I'm wrong but atheism is largely connected to left-wing politics and religiousness to the 'right'. I believe it should be the opposite and here is why. — Jacykow

The dinner-table talk taboo, part two: Religion. (More opinions, personal experiences, and attempted humor incoming.)

Well, I would not necessarily say it “should” be the opposite. But I can imagine it possibly being very different, given different circumstances. Opposite sides in a struggle tend to do just that by default: take the opposite position from the opposition. If the Right declared hot dogs to be the absolute best picnic food, some on the Left could be certain to back hamburgers. Possibly meatless patties or even all varieties of burgers. If the Left backed coffee as the beverage of choice, the Right would back tea as their party’s fav... oh wait... maybe that’s a bad example. :blush:

More seriously, though... I think that there WAS a burgeoning religious movement on the Left / liberal side. Many of its roots were in the counterculture 1960s, though it reached further back in its influences. It was multi-cultural and drew much on the Far Eastern and Aboriginal traditions, while still retaining some European and Middle Eastern spiritual and religious traditions. Especially the mystical Abrahamic practices and ideas, as well as classical philosophical ones. This movement peaked in the early 2000s, but lost much momentum and direction in the wake the tragedies of September 11, 2001.

At that time, I was in several spiritual groups that were open to the possibly of (at least discussing) comparative religion. We had public book discussions, metaphysics studies, alternative healing classes, and participated in drum circles dedicated to soothing at least some of the psychological trauma of the terror attacks.

But within a short time, it felt like a cold fog had descended upon this somewhat new-age spiritual scene, and not just locally. The possibility of conversing about comparative religion, let alone some kind of perennial philosophy, seemed a distant memory. For example, after 9/11 how on earth could a bookstore discussion group talk about Sufi poets or something, and not feel conflicted or hesitant. Or even spied upon. The fear and unease was both palpable and unnameable.

And years later, to the detriment of all, the splintered feeling remains. All one can do in such situations is pick up whatever pieces that can be found. One by one. And keep looking for a higher ground that is also a middle ground. This place on earth exists, it just needs to be discovered.

This place is as special we make it. You are sacred. Subjective value versus objective. If we all agree this place is useless, it is. If we all agree you are useless, we're wrong. — Hanover

(May have got jumbled in the box of shouting... but :up: )

...an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error... — Baden

Exactly. However, my (very convoluted) point was that it was neither a reasoning error, nor a valid reason. It was more of an aside, a personal opinion. Not that one can use that loophole to sneak in garbage. But the response was so tame that is not the case. Good point, though.

But, yea... we are way off the turnpike, if the OP wants to guide us... :monkey:

And just to show my wisdom in judgments... Solomon had it all wrong. He should’ve cut the baby up into a hundred pieces so everyone could have shared it. Case closed! :razz:

Fascinating stuff! I love the explanation and discussion of fallacies. There are so many of them, and with such colorful names. And that’s just the ones that I’ve committed in the last week. :wink:

But since this thread has morphed into “What the heck IS an Ad Hom?”, I’d like to go out on a limb here and say that the fallacy is not even relevant here. Let us review, shall we:

It was unquestionably less civil to call someone a dick than it was for someone to claim your position was sad. The former was bullying, the latter perhaps insensitive. It did seem though from his response that he was unoffended by your middle school taunt, yet by your response it was clear you were incapable of handling criticism maturely.
— Hanover

I will plead nolo contendere to a charge of misdemeanor hypocrisy. I like to talk about civility but I also like to call people names sometimes. I usually feel bad about it later, but if feels so good when I'm doing it.

In regard to Galuchat, he sets out to show contempt for people with the intent to hurt them for his own what, enjoyment? Did you read the things he wrote about Tiff? Disgusting. He deserves a rhetorical slap-down.

As for "handling criticism maturely" it shouldn't surprise you to find out that, after the things you have said to me and about me over the past few weeks, I don't give your criticism much credibility. — T Clark

Then Han’s response about the alledged ad hom:

As for "handling criticism maturely" it shouldn't surprise you to find out that, after the things you have said to me and about me over the past few weeks, I don't give your criticism much credibility.
— T Clark

Sounds like yet another irrelevant ad hom.
- Hanover

I propose that TC’s comment, the alleged ad hominem fallacy, was NOT part of any logical argument, and qualifies more as an opinion or preference, rather than some point of debate. Even though it was about a person, rather than a food preference or political opinion or something. So in TC’s own mind, he doesn’t trust Han’s credibility, and states that. Opinion and personal preference.

If that is unconvincing, and an ad hom is even possible here, it is probably the equivalent of a ticky-tack foul in sports, barely meeting the definition of even a character reference, let alone a character attack. Merely a response in kind. And definitely not an example of name-calling.

Verdict: throw the case out. (But continue with this discussion of fallacies. Very educational.)
:up:

Seems to be a relevant article. From aeon.co:

https://aeon.co/essays/do-people-have-a-moral-duty-to-have-children-if-they-can

Just skimmed it. Will give it more attention later.

Penny for your thoughts... :sweat: The wise and somewhat kooky advice of Yoda inspires all.

:up: Wow, thanks! That’s really nice, guys. Always appreciate your thought-provoking posts, agree or disagree. Gotta go now, think I got something in my eye... :cry:

Yea, mostly with Posty on this. But I wonder if the formatting of the forum plays some part. Some forums that I visit have an area tucked away at the bottom of the listings for off-topic stuff, or even an area you can’t access unless you have a certain number of posts. So the nasty, salty, or pungent stuff is mostly safely contained in its little adult swim area, or whatever. It is allowed to exist, but at a distance. And people know what to expect when they go there (within reason, of course).

All well and good. But on this forum, a blunt comment in the Shoutbox can kind of hit you off guard. Also, when in “view all discussions” mode, which everyone probably uses, the goofy Lounge stuff (which can be lots of fun occasionally) just flows in the line with the weightier topics. Anyhow, just my two cents... :smile:

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. Try to reply to your reply, will I. (sorry :smile: )

Although I see the points made about reducing humans in order to "let the planet breathe" so-to-say, and I am nominally in agreement with this, this is more a hypothetical imperative. The ethic of saving the planet, doesn't really make sense without its human impact, and thus these are strategies to continue the human project through putting constraints on population. This to me is secondary or at least derivative of the primary goal of antinatalism which I think is to prevent all structural and contingent suffering for a future person. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I see the point you are making here. That antinatalism isn’t primarily concerned with “saving the earth”. Was mentioning this to show at least one hard and fast practical benefit of antinatalism. Though I have read works that say in effect that “Gaia is trying to throw off the virus that is humanity in order to save itself”, or similar notions. And that some people are in favor of such, more for the sake of the planet and other creatures. Not that I necessarily agree with this tangential point.

However... would you consider it theoretically possible to have the earth’s population and civilization’s structure at a point where suffering was greatly diminished from where it generally is now? Such that antinatalism could be perceived as a relative strategy and position, rather than an absolute and inflexible tenet? If so, I would find the position to be more supportable. But that simply might be due to the fact that I consider absolutes to be the realm of the gods, which humans only deal with indirectly, existing as relative beings in a relative world. (More tangled tangents, sorry).

No this is actually more directly related to this thread. Schopenhauer's philosophy of suffering closely parallels that of Buddhism which has been widely noted, even by Schopenhauer himself in his own writings. Schopenhauer thought there was a principle of Will which is the reality at the flipped side of our appearances based in time/space/causality and the PSR in general. Anyways, Schop thought the best course of action was to "quiet the Will" by becoming an ascetic and compassionate acts. Schop thought that at the root of things is emptiness. Behind all pursuits there is nothing to be had. He thought we could "feel" this with our experience of profound boredom. Thus, boredom is not just an epiphenomenon of humans having emotions, but telling us something about existence itself qua existence. We always have to be goal-oriented to try to get away from this negative aspect of restless boredom. This is part of the structural suffering found in his and other philosophical pessimist philosophers. — schopenhauer1

You are right that the suffering (and its causes and remedies) aspect is closer to the heart of the matter. As I mentioned in my post above, I believe that every action is important, and each thought is crucial. Even if we don’t notice any immediate effects. And that the decision whether or not to have a child might be the most critical decision a person makes, as it full of consequences. So a second practical benefit of antinatalism is to make a person seriously consider the “downside” of having offspring. Usually, if a married couple of reproductive age desire a child and have a nice home, in a safe neighborhood, and are making a comfortable living, the answer seems obvious. Obviously, the choice is completely up to them. But if this theoretical couple’s thinking does not go beyond their desire and optimal environment, they might be in for a rude awakening. But such is life, always teaching us even we have mentally checked out.

Well interesting you bring up this double-aspect. It would be nice and dandy to wrap it up and say we are just animals with a different degree of consciousness. However, that does not appear to be the case. We are animals with a wholly "Other" kind of self-awareness then even animals as intelligent as chimps and dolphins. Despite claims otherwise (and this is getting down a whole different tangent if we let it go too far requiring yet another thread on animal intelligence..) other animals do not have the comprehensive linguistic-conceptual framework that allows for almost complete cultural (conceptual/linguistic) abilities to survive. This in turn has given us other abilities, including among much else, our ability to know our existential situation in the first place. Other animals are at home in their existence, following instinctual drives or context-dependent learning. Their self-awareness is little to none. There are no "existentially depressed" animals. A bird makes its nest, finds mates, etc. based on largely pre-programmed drives with some limited context-dependent flexible learning also thrown in. — schopenhauer1

Hmm. Well... humans are mammals. All mammals are animals. I don’t mean to play word games here, without any purpose. And it’s a whole other discussion. I agree that Homo Sapiens have evolved to the most advanced intellectual level, architectural level, and arguably the most social level. (Surprisingly, even before the invention of Facebook). But an advancement, even an evolutionary one, is just that: an advantage or ability. And I would argue that believing in humans’ superiority over animals confers upon us (perhaps ironically) no advantages or abilities. In fact, it may make us believe that we are completely exempt from the laws of nature that seem to govern the animal kingdom. (By the way, discussed this in a thread about the ideas of Daniel Quinn here). To define humanity absolutely by the 5% or 18% (or whatever) genetic or cognitive difference from another primate is to unintentionally distain the majority of commonality. To ignore the foundations in order to praise the steeple. And by the way (as a comment on your point), there have been numerous instances of animals displaying the behavioral symptoms of depression, not surprisingly in captivity. Weight gain or loss, reduced activity, solitary tendencies, etc. No one can get into their mind of course but the behavior is analogous to that of humans, in this case at least. And that we “can’t get into their mind” is significant too. We just do not know for certain what their mental and spiritual experience is really like.

Anyway, more tangents. I know that comparing and contrasting humans and animals is not the topic, and I’m barking up the wrong family tree. (But hey, antinatalism presents many potential consequences!) In comparison with animals, humans are the far younger species in most cases. Native Americans called them “ancestors”.

Thanks again! :smile:

One could see this on two levels, both significant in their way.

On a literal, physical, practical level perhaps the earth could benefit from anti-natalism. Just based on current circumstances and environmental conditions, it seems the earth is close to its so-called carrying capacity. Even if the earth could potentially handle say 10 billion people, current human civilization could not deal with it in any satisfactory way. The human cities, especially the largest ones, are both a marvel and a catastrophe, simultaneously. Better planning could remedy some of the pain and overcrowding, but that is easier said than done. Even without relying absolutely on the arguments of peak oil and climate change, there are major environmental and population issues arriving that are unprecedented. So some people putting the brakes on reproduction, or at least giving it skepticism and doubt, is a positive thing.

The second level has been referred to in this thread perhaps indirectly. It’s what I was getting at in my post about the Buddha’s notion of suffering and its possible cure. The idea and reality of karma, action and reaction, causes and effects. Ripples flowing out endlessly from each action, even from each thought. Thought and intention have a power as great as action often times. The Eastern concepts of extinction and avoiding re-birth and going beyond karma grasp this. To over-generalize perhaps, the Western way often is that “more is better” and “anything is better than nothing”. Not just products and money, but people, words, ideas, experiences, time, space, more of anything imaginable. Just to have a model of counterbalance to that Yang, that “unlimited growth”, is helpful.

Our paradox is this. Humans are animals. Humans are not animals. Both statements are facts. Both statements best be appreciated for the potential knowledge and action come from understanding them.

The First Noble Truth of Buddhism is that all life is suffering. The Second Noble Truth is that suffering is caused by desire. That's not suffering the way we usually think of it. It's not events - sickness, death, loss - that make us suffer. It's our illusions. — T Clark

Yes, that is well put. Thanks. Each dish of food turns us into Goldilocks; this porridge is too hot, this porridge is too cold. Each bite brings pleasure, or its sibling pain. Umm... kalamata olives! Yummy. Ow! Bit into a pit! As the saying goes- all the same are pleasure and pain; fame and shame; honors and blame.

The ideas presented in this thread reminded me of Joseph Campbell, specifically these videos. Responding the quotes that “history is a dream from which we are trying to awaken” and “life is something that should not have been”, he may sound a little glib to some. But still, it is a television show despite the deep subject matter. Agree or disagree, good stuff nonetheless.

Hey, Posty McPostface, see this:

The three poisons were represented by animals. A chicken or bird for greed. A snake for hatred. And a pig for ignorance. — T Clark

Any resemblance to any avatars, either living or dead, is purely coincidental! Shoulda put that in the disclaimer. :yum:

Interesting thread, and well-argued on many sides.

One could say that the Buddha stared into the abyss of life and death, and arrived at a philosophy that accounts for all the pains, pressures, and pleasures that either exist or one could ever imagine. As is well known, he said all life is indelibly printed with three marks: impermanence, suffering, and non-self (which might be translated as “all phenomena and beings are intertwined or co-arising”. Or maybe humorously: it takes two to tango, times a trillion).

The suffering/pain part of the equation seems to be something of a variable, as I understand it. There is always some suffering, at the very least the realization of one’s mortality and the mortality and impermanence of absolutely everything and everyone around us. But one can either turn up the burners on the suffering, or act to extinguish them. At least it is theoretically possible to do so to a large degree, despite many examples to the contrary. But maybe even the examples of pain, suffering, evil, disease, etc. show where and how someone made a difficult situation into a tragedy.

It is the third mark, non-self (or anatta) that seems to be the mysterious key, the deeply buried treasure. If impermanence is a given, as is a base-line suffering, then how can one reduce additional suffering? Is that even possible? Buddha said it is possible. He said that suffering is fed and increased by greed, hatred, and ignorance (what he called the three poisons*). Greed and hatred seem to act as a binary pair, where an increase in one leads to more of the other. And both could be said to flourish from ignorance or delusion the way that mold loves warm and moist darkness.

So then... ignorance of what? There is so much to be ignorant of! (Personally, I have lost track of all the countless things I am ignorant of. If only I had a penny for every thing I do not know, then I do not know how many billions of pennies I would have. Which would lead to even more pennies!)

If one draws a correlation between the third poison of ignorance and the third mark of existence which is “non-self”, there may be a spark of an idea, or hope, or at least some explanation. The concept of anatta seems almost beyond words. And if it isn’t, it is not defined nor explained both quickly AND thoroughly. Even so, I leave that to the masters of the Dao.

But one can meditate on the concept of anatta and expect it to shed some light in one’s mind, given enough time and effort. Ignorance of the concept non-self and the fundamental co-existence of all things is, as mentioned, not the only ignorance. But it may be a primary one, opening Pandora’s box of pandemonium.

Or such is my rudimentary understanding of Buddhism, that seemed relevant to this thread. Apologies for any errors or exaggerations. For entertainment purposes only. Not valid in NJ, UT, and PA. :monkey:

* The three poisons were represented by animals. A chicken or bird for greed. A snake for hatred. And a pig for ignorance. Which makes sense, but modern Western tendencies (and knowledge of pigs’ intelligence) wants to switch the pig to greed, and the chicken to ignorance. Because as you well know... a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig." - Bricktop

Exactly! Thank you. I was recently trying to explain just this very topic to my friend. Well, somewhat. Actually, we were mostly talking about basketball. But still, I was trying to show how isomorphic equations can be used to evaluate the performance of point guards in the playoffs. He called BS on me, clearly not the sabermetrician that I hoped he was. Anyway, thanks for posting. :up:

Well, actually... I was commenting there on Posty’s comment, and merely suggesting a more inclusive language (i.e. humanity instead of mankind). No worries. Though it might be wise for me to stay out of the way of others’ jousting- playful, clever, or otherwise. :monkey: :smile:

Yeah, so unless Noble is suddenly a woman, I stand by my initial remark. :brow: — TimeLine

Wisdom is either being clever enough to learn from other mistakes or knowing not to make a mistake twice after learning from it once. — SherlockH

Excellent point! (And a darn good first post). Turning mistakes into knowledge/wisdom is the lead-into-gold (or manure-into-marigolds, if you prefer) alchemy that is the ideal of philosophy. And there is an unending supply of leaden mistakes. I have a storage unit filled with them. :blush:

Etymology speaking... It seems that there is some intertwining correlation between the roots and histories of the words wise, wizard, white, wizened. They all seem to be summed up by the saying “older and wiser”. (“White” here referring ostensibly to the hair color of most elders, rather than a shade of skin). Many hundreds of years ago, the elders in the group would most certainly be the repositories of knowledge, experience, and wisdom. But somewhere along the way (probably coinciding with the invention of advertising :wink: ), the “new” surpassed the “ancient” as a measure of worth. Now we have the internet and Goggle, so the elders now function mostly as consumers of pharmaceuticals and other health care related products. And for the young- the sensation of sailing on a fast and high-tech but rudderless boat, with each passing year taking more off your resale value...

Man and woman I suppose. — Posty McPostface

There have been a handful of examples in this thread using the word “man” to stand for humanity. Not the biggest faux pas, but seems outdated at best... (imho and fwiw) :chin:

Hello Regi, thanks for your post. Interesting question, perhaps as a general question it is one of the perennial philosophical and spiritual mysteries.

I’m not a fan of naming it ego “death”, though I understand why many do so. Death is such an absolute word, so black or white. How about “ego-transcendence”? A knowledge that the ego does not equal the self, let alone anything beyond it. Maybe the ego has a valuable function in the human experience, even if it seems to be often imbalanced or over-emphasized. If one asked a dieting person how much they wanted to lose, none would say “all of it!!” Not unless they were joking, or perhaps depressed and suicidal. The same roughly applies to the ego, in my experience.

Perhaps you have read some authors who deal with Transpersonal Psychology. Basically and generally, they attempt to use science and reason to shed light on ancient spiritual practices and traditions. The Transpersonalists mostly act on the premise that there is something vital worth exploring in these practices, even if one is not a religious or even a particularly spiritual person. The prevalence and popularity of yoga is an example of this, though the tradition includes much more than hatha yoga with its asanas and exercises. The writings and lectures of Joseph Campbell may also be helpful here. As mentioned above, Buddhism almost specializes in this area, as does other traditions like Taoism.

There have been several threads on this forum, more or less dealing with this topic:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1568/discarding-the-ego-as-a-way-to-happiness/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/190/is-my-happiness-more-important-than-your-happiness-egoism/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/842/the-nature-of-the-self-and-the-boundaries-of-the-individual/p1

Thanks again, and good luck. :up:

My concept of a change in the human condition is hard to properly describe, and I'm conflicted about the concept itself. My view of it is based in a Judeo-Christian conception of morality, admittedly, even though I'm no longer a Christian per se. I try to avoid that aspect, simply because I want to deal with the ideas as objectively as I can without introducing assumptions and baggage, both my own, and your's/the reader's, etc. Making all of this more confusing, I'm on the fence as to whether the human condition is something that we can change ourselves. I see a conflict between the heights that humanity can arrive at, and the depths that we can fall into. And so I have a fundamental tension in my view of whether we can and should strive to change our condition, or whether it's hubris. BUT, one thing that I'm sure of is that our physical striving to change our condition, tech, is utterly inert and unable to change our condition. I think I've already made my points about that. To the contrary, the human condition is an inner condition, in the sense of an esoteric, rather than an exoteric condition; the human condition is not a material condition; it's a spiritual condition. We live in a world of spiritual poverty. The human condition is spiritual poverty. For that to change from spiritual poverty to spiritual nourishment would require a profound shift. I don't know how it can be done. But I refuse nihilism on the shear basis of my own living and breathing existence, and so I have to entertain the possibility of a shift from spiritual poverty to spiritual nourishment. It's apophatic; I know it's possible because I feel it's lack. — Noble Dust

Thanks for sharing this. There are different ways to word the angst we feel, but “spiritual poverty” does nicely. In a way different than the suffering of existence, such as Sartré described, this poverty seems related to morality, but not exactly equal to it. For example, imagine an innocent child born into a family racked by drug abuse. To switch the word “poverty” with “famine”, we as a species somehow seem to be starving on our deepest levels in the midst of plenty.

Nutritional science continues to map the foods, vitamins, minerals, etc. that one needs to be in an optimal state of health. Have we filled ourselves with emotionally and spiritually empty calories, grabbing immediate but cheaper psychological “fuel” and meaning because it is more readily available. What if the healthier options are very limited and hard to find? The body, mind, and spirit all need their various fuels or inputs. Quality is an issue, but a lesser something is often better than nothing. If this condition has been existent for a long time, things like social media, video games, and television itself are definitely factors, but not necessarily the source of the issue. And are fractured families, unemployment, drug abuse, violent behavior, etc actually the source, a symptom, or perhaps both (as in a feedback loop)?

Some days this is my fav BLR song. Sometimes it’s “Seagulls”. Other days “Not the Future”... :nerd:

Long long ago, oh around 1730 or so, when I was but a young vampyre, I recall that there was an essay called A Modest Proposal written by one Jonathan Swift. It was quite shocking for its time, facetiously proposing that the problems of overpopulation, poverty, and famine could simultaneously be eased by the selling and eating of... (disgusting spoiler alert!) ...children. Scandalous back then, fodder for an animated TV series today. Oh well... such is progress. And by the way, if I recall correctly, Swift himself was quite delicious. His blood was quite the fine red wine. Its ruby rich delight was packed with mouth-watering sumptuousness with hints of bramble, blackberry, boysenberry, and even Frankenberry flourishes. A treat to pair with beef testicles or lamb spleen escabeché. Also was an ideal companion for manic-depression, chicken and/or waffles. Had a greasy cigar box bouquet, and a dirty autumn leaf pile finish. Very rare, but highly recommended! :ok:

more mad maxims... :flower:

• Despite any appearances to the contrary, this particular moment is radically different from all others, and yet somehow is connected to all of them.
  
• On slippery ice, walk like a penguin. Keep your arms out, walk slowly with a wide stance, and shuffle your feet.
  
• If one must assume anything, assume that anything can happen at anytime, for goodness knows what reason.
  
• If you can’t apologize to someone directly or in person, then apologize in your heart.
  
• Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them. - Obi-Won Kenobi
  
• Don’t believe every thought that enters your mind. Treat your thoughts with the skepticism and caution you would have if someone knocked on your door in the middle of the night.
  
• Showing Off Strengths = S.O.S.
  Working On Weakness = WOW
  
• Whatever others do or don’t do, uphold your end of the bargain.
  
• Words and deeds live on longer than the person. If you assume your words will have an effect, and that your actions are being recorded; you are probably correct.
  
• How am I not myself? How am I not myself? How am I not myself? - from I :heart: Huckabees.
  
• Where can you go, to leave yourself behind? - “Red Light”, U2

More mottos that pop into my mind occasionally, and seem to be helpful...

• Words reflect the speaker (or writer) far, far more than the supposed subject under discussion. Our favorite subject is ourselves.

• Bless everyone and everything, all of the time. Try to, at least. (Blessing here not meaning approving or liking, necessarily.)

• When in doubt, wait it out.
  
• Speeding through a parking lot saves no time, and helps absolutely no one.
  
• When you are tired of being yourself, be someone else. When you are tired of being a human, be a tree or perhaps a pool of water.
  
• When doing a job: safety first. Then accuracy and correctness. Then speed.
  
• What is the hardest thing to carry, yet weighs nothing? A grudge.
  
• Don’t say “I can do it” because the subconscious when answer “No, you can’t!” or “No, you shouldn’t”. Say rather “It can be done, if it is necessary and the timing is right”.
  
  From the Tao Te Ching:
• Treat a victory as seriously as a funeral.
  
• If you do not compete, you will have in all the world no competitor.
  
• Who has enough to fill up everyone? Only those that are filled with emptiness.
  
• The highest good is like water. Water can wear away a mountain, and yet wash your dirty feet without complaint!

is it a fatal flaw etched in our DNA?
— 0 thru 9

Pretty much. — Bitter Crank

Uh oh... i was ascared you’d say that! :smile: I agree that human nature has many weakness. Or to put it optimistically: opportunities for growth. So all we can do is some type of damage control? We seem to lack a sense of priority, perspective, and balance often. When I was a kid, I knew that eating some candy made me feel good. I reasoned/assumed that having 10x the amount of candy would make me feel 10x as good. Of course, it didn’t work that way. Just felt sick. To this day, still trying to learn balance.

Tired of boring old on-line porn? Buy the all new and exciting Sony Orgasmitron Porn Viewer RIGHT NOW. Plug it in and turn it on. Feel every thrust and spasm of the star's 1000 orgasms. The durable probes are dishwasher and washing machine safe. — Bitter Crank

OMG! Link? Where can one get such a wonderful device? (whispers to self: balance... balance...) :blush:

Ok, thanks guys for the behind-the-scenes story. Appreciate your responses.

Still think having suspensions as an option might be helpful sometimes. Just a suggestion. For those in error, who might still be rehabilitated or whatever. Kind of like an adult version of “time-out”. :victory:

I will agree with Jess’s idea above that maybe a suspension is a more apt response than banning. Don’t know if that has even been done before, though i may have missed it. Most forums I follow have a suspension as well as a banning protocol. Off the top of my head, the dearly departed always seemed conversational and polite to others mostly. Just out of curiosity, I searched his post history.
Nothing shocking. Observations and opinions. He offered some retorts in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2943/ontological-implications-of-relativity/p1
But nothing impolite or trollish, in my opinion. Quirky perhaps, but quantum physics is a quirky (or is that quarky) subject. And this is a philosophy forum, not a physics site of course.

But however... the HMS Philosophy Forum is your ship, dear moderators. Steer it to shores of your choosing, and godspeed. I am a lowly sailor, and no Fletcher Christian. And Rich may have been no pure-hearted Billy Budd, foretopman. Captain Vere, despite his conscience and reluctance, ordered Billy’s hanging as by the law, in Melville’s story. What is an old salt to do when there is nothing that can be done, save perhaps scrimshawing the letters B and S onto a whale’s tooth. In remembrance of “Billy’s Soul”, of course...

To sidestep the AI aspect of the OP for now, as well as the (possible) ticking time bomb of climate change and overpopulation...

Whenever I think of The Future, all i can see is The Present, but in different clothing, holding different tech devices, driving (or not driving) different vehicles. Almost like the very concept of a radically different future doesn’t compute with me somehow. Likewise, I don’t know what the word “community” means or is supposed to mean anymore. To me, it is one of those words that have become almost neutralized, bland, drained of meaning and blood (as have the words “love”, “progress”, “immorality”, etc.). This is despite the apparent importance of the concept itself. But words losing their meaning or their bite is another topic.

So let’s, for this example, replace the word “community” with the word “team”. I think that the team concept is very clear, especially in sports. Individuals comprise the team and are measured by statistics, but there is some tempering of individual desires to maintain a team spirit, a camaraderie. This is done of course in quest of victories on the field or court. A player can be a great athlete, a great team player, or both, or neither.

What I’m getting at with this overextended metaphor is this: right now the best case present scenario is that we are bunch of All-Star caliber talents with little training in how to act as a team. This training and knowledge has been consistently under-appreciated for as long as the oldest citizens can remember. Team spirit in our daily life of course exists here and there through the efforts of people, and perhaps some sort of grace. But we are suspicious of it. What if i give my best for the team, as someone else gets the money or credit? (I don’t exclude myself from this suspicion or failure).

We are the Beatles circa 1969. Full of talent and experience, but also exhaustion, bitterness and quarrels. The earlier Beatles were almost certainly never as jolly and equal as advertised, and were maybe partially formed as a musical street gang. But there was some sort of intense cohesion.

Are we the personification of this line by Monte Burns from the television show The Simpsons?:

“Oh, I'm afraid I've had one of my trademark changes of heart. You see, teamwork will only take you so far. Then the truly evolved person makes that extra grab for personal glory. Now I must discard my teammates, much like the boxer must shed roll after roll of sweaty, useless, disgusting flab before he can win the title. Ta!”

(The rich Mr. Burns had forced his way onto Homer’s bowling team, and despite his incompetence, they won the trophy).

If we are like this, is there a way to change it? Is it some fixable fault? Or is it a fatal flaw etched in our DNA? Have we met the enemy, and they are us? Are a relatively small group of criminals at fault, misleading others and obscuring the facts? Or is this example off the mark? If it is, prior to further technology salves and salvations, what then is the central glitch in the human heart and/or civilization that is causing such angst? Where are the bugs in the software?

Wow, didn’t know that. Very sorry to hear the news. His thoughtful, theoretical, metaphysical posts will be missed. He added class to this fine forum, imho.

“Get it, before you forget it”.

Like taking the coffee cup off the car roof before it spills down the windshield while backing out. :gasp:

Haha! Great version on that song. Dang, there are over 100 songs on the Postmodern Jukebox YT channel. Good stuff! :up:

Excellent points.

Our highly constructive age (buildings, cities, pyramids) isn't very old in relationship to our species age. If we've been around for tens of thousands of years, the first mud brick town is only about 9,000 years old, and that was a fairly modest affair. In between bursts of bigness (several ancient civilizations) life quieted down again. After the western Roman Empire fizzled out (about 500 A.D.) there were about 900 years of European peasants and very minor lords living quietly. Then things started heating up again, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and here we are.

Cultural code is an important driver, along with our genetic code. When the resources are aligned just right, we are driven to start building again, and after all that ends up in ruin, we give up angel food cake and go back to black bread and turnips for a few centuries.

We learn again and again about taking what we need and leaving the rest, but we keep forgetting it. Unfortunately our cultural codes over-ride humble truths and we decide to take everything if at all possible, or at least as much as we can cart away.

IF, and it's a huge 400 ft high IF, we could take just what we needed and leave the rest, we could all live a simpler life, but we could all live. 21st Century "post-industrial" civilization is doomed (planet wide) and the survivors of the doom will be forced to live a much simpler, harder life. But that's another thread.

The thing about the UBI, or an advanced economy anywhere, is that if one lives simply one wouldn't have to work so much. But living simply is hard -- the cultural code doesn't encourage it. Even simpler living is viewed as something of a pathology. There are barriers put I'm the way. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. More and more, i am tending to think that the problems concerning jobs and the problems we have concerning the abuse/misuse of the planet/environment are intimately related, linked together by the economy. I would say that is possible (at least in theory) to have a large, technology-based society that operates “sustainably” with a high quality of life for its citizens. But not having seen evidence of such, it remains theoretical imho.

As for the causes and remedies of this “life out of balance”, i can only guess. The existential malaise that Sartré described seems to be growing, if possible. We envy animals and rocks because they seem to know their place in the world. There is such an order, balance, and symmetry to the natural world that human culture can seem like a rash or a blemish. All this from the pinnacle of creation, humanity. Maybe it is the Peter Principle; we’ve risen to the height of our incompetence. How can we be as authentic and balanced as animals and rocks, and still be fully human? Time and mistakes will teach us, if we can’t answer the question now.

Yes, actually that is what I'm getting at. What do we humans have to do en masse to change the structure and thus change the habits? — schopenhauer1

That is the billion dollar (and billion person) question. Well, whatever the answer might be, it would take some time to implement and take effect. We didn’t get in this predicament over night. But we have the accumulated knowledge of countless generations. We have the technology. Do we have the will to make adjustments? There is a quote somewhere about the earth having the ability to provide for the need of 8 billion people, but not their greed.

The way the system is now, people are encouraged to take everything possible. Anything not used personally can be used for leverage and power. I would not say no to a million dollars, but why do practically all millionaires act like they need more? Why do we all, rich and poor alike, feel so powerless and empty? What are the human needs that our culture is not meeting on a consistent basis? We can reduce, re-use, and recycle to be more efficient. But there needs to be something to fill the social, spiritual, emotional needs in each of us. In that respect, I would say that most of us are starving or sick from that which we tried to fill the emptiness with. Short of a world-wide group hug :victory: :heart:, I don’t have many specific suggestions. What will it take to reach a general consensus? We are like addicts waiting to hit rock bottom. Is it an emergency yet? In an emergency, a good place to start is to stop looking for people to blame, and start looking for solutions and ways to stop the bleeding.

:up: Ah yes, “the original affluent society”. Good stuff, thanks for sharing! Beginning over two million years ago with homo habilis, humans have done very well, especially when it comes to eating. If they hadn’t, we would not be here! In accounts of North America soon after European settlers arrived, rivers were described as overflowing with fish, and there would be so many that they would just wash up on shore. Food was everywhere with nary an empty calorie for omnivorous humans: the original Paleo diet.

:up: Excellent points all, thank you for detailing a feasible scenario where UBI could come to pass and help many people. Logically and circumstantially, the time seems about right. I’m sold on the idea. It would tend to raise the standard of living, and hopefully ease the despair that fuels violence and drug abuse.

But (to be skeptical, not of the plan, but of other factors) unless the “conservative leadership” really approved and pushed it, a large sector of voters would probably not support it because they heard on talk radio that immigrants will be stealing our tax dollars, or some such mush. Even if they would benefit from a UBI themselves, they still might cut off their nose to spite their face. There might even be a rebellion against any conservative leader who supported it, as being a socialist traitor. But perhaps not.

To burrow even deeper into our underlying belief system... One could perhaps metaphorically say that the underlying “software” on which our western civilization operates, is “A Capital Idea OS 10.7”, so to speak. Governments are apps running within that operating system. Encoded within this OS, are the twin objectives which supercede everything else, even human life, a livable environment, sustainable growth, logic, etc. These twin objectives are, predictably, “winning” and “profits”. They are the two legs are forever running toward the endless goal of dominance/success. It is the basic “drive to survive” present in all living beings, but taken to the Nth degree, to the point of imbalance, and of absurdity.

It is absurd because it is based on faulty logic: if some is good, more must be better, and having it all must be heaven. And it’s also based on the illogical premise that there must be winners and losers in all situations. If you lose, therefore i win, since there is a limited amount of “happiness” to go around. And it is firmly based on the premise that I referred to earlier: that everyone ultimately is an absolute individual, locked in their own isolated reality. Now and forever, on heaven and earth, amen.

The guardians of the status quo may tweak the code a bit to make it more “efficient”, but they didn’t write the software since it is very old. And it is based on an even older software called DAGR (for Delusion, Aversion, and Greed Repetition) which was criticized by many sages of the Axial Age, notably Guatama Buddha, who was a proponent of an ancient software called 4TMW (pronounced “for tomorrow”) which was based on the idea of “the 4 noble truths” and “the middle way”, which in part proposed taking what one needed and leaving the rest alone. This would produce contentment for the present, and ensure optimal conditions for future generations.

Human nature itself (flawed as it may be) is not responsible for this peril, one could say, for humans lived for an almost inconceivable amount of time in the occasionally difficult but mostly quiet routine of living. We are not condemned to live this way by our nature. But the code which controls much of our current lives for better or worse is in fact “open source”. It was written by humans and can be changed by humans. But only when we are collectively ready, willing, and able to do so. It may be time for an update.