It's too late for me to look for references, as well. Yawn. However...

I don't think the addiction model applies to most porn users. Most users just want some degree of fresh imagery -- not the same videos or photos again and again. Which isn't to say that a particular title can't effectively satisfy a given user many times.

The required stimulus needs to be stronger and stronger, which translates to harder and harder core porn. — Noble Dust

It seems like this model would lead the producers of pornography into absurd sexual territory. How far can 'harder and harder core' go? My preferred style of porn has stayed within the same range for 50+ years. The hard core of 2023 is pretty much the same as the hard core of 1973. But then, I haven't been looking for ever more extreme imagery,

Children should be taught early on, to never get into bed -- alone or with somebody else -- while wearing street shoes. It's just unsanitary. Hard core pornography all too often glorifies sex while wearing shoes or boots--boots, especially, with heavy socks. And not nice fancy books, either--it's dirty working boots, typical of working class men. We'll discuss proletarian porn later.

Boots in bed are one of the mysteries of pornography. Why do naked people have sex with their shoes or boots on? This bizarre practice is really quite perverse, and should be vigorously suppressed. Workboots in bed are far worse than candy-red spike heels. That one can understand, but shit kicking boots?

Look at the document below! Granted, this is weak tea, but he is naked, so it counts. No genitalia revealed, not so much as one pubic hair displayed, moderators please note.

The perplexing question:

Having engaged in an orgy, is he putting his shoes on before he gets dressed, or is he taking his shoes off after having gotten undressed before the orgy? It's intolerable, either way. Children should not be exposed to this sort of perverse imagery, because it will inevitably lead to discomfort and injury during sex. It also leads to illogical dressing habits. Pants on first, then socks and shoes, Socks and shoes off first, then the pants. Shirts can be removed independent of boots and shoes. That's the way God intended it to be.

One can only hope that the orgy was conducted with a better sense of propriety.

Gambling and pornography involve somewhat different principles. The major risk in looking at the next picture of one's preferred naked body is that it won't do much for one. Meh! Next. Every play for a gambler involves the potential of material loss or material gain. The stakes are higher, with the pain of loss or the adrenaline and dopamine rush of winning more intense. Plus, the stakes are always staked against the player.

What may happen to some pornography users is that they become desensitized to sexual images, and have to increase the volume they look at to find stimulating material. I don't know that they have to see more extreme material, but they at least have to see new, unfamiliar material.

That's what keeps the adult film studios busy.

I wasn't making much of a moral equivalence case for habituated behavior. Of course, heroin or meth addiction is much worse than coffee or 'soap opera addiction'. Heroin and meth cause intensely strong addictions, coffee a weak addiction, and soap operas no addiction at all. Habits aren't addictions, but are significant aspects of behavior. Habitual use of pornography may not be a significant factor in the life of one person, but may be quite troublesome in someone else's, depending on all sorts of other factors.

The first time The Philosophy Forum (or Philosophy Forum?) crashed, I was a bit discombobulated because a morning habit of checking in was frustrated. It got better after a few days. Dessert after dinner is a pleasant habit; not getting dessert won't result in mass suicide (one hopes).

Masturbating with on-line pornography can be a habit, but if the Internet goes down, one will survive without a crisis. He might even be forced to use his imagination.

Song from the early 1960s

Shawn: I supposed Peterson was against it, yes?

Everything that is true about 20th/21st century culture, media, entertainment, advertising, business, regulation, religion, social and private behavior, and more is also true about pornography. Pornography doesn't exist on a separate dimension from the rest of society. It's a piece of the whole. It's been a piece of the whole since before photography, when pornographic scenes were drawn and painted for an elite audience who could afford such erotic luxury.

Art, music, drama, film, etc. have been democratized; it's accessible to anyone with the minimum cost of a ticket or access to streaming services. Porn has also been democratized and production is by the latest technology and distribution systems. Children routinely access sophisticated information sources I would not have thought to access at their age, sources far beyond the local public library's print collection.

Naturally -- and it is natural -- they also access sexual material. What is more alarming than 12 year olds looking at pornography, is 12 year olds looking at pornography without having had any education in sexuality--personal sexuality, and interpersonal sexuality.

Should they have such instruction? Of course they should. Before they reach 12, curious children are investigating sex with their peers. Peer-led sex instruction, though normal, is likely to be somewhat less than ideal.

People get hooked on phonics--a desirable addiction. They also get hooked on Crispy Creme donuts, Coca Cola, coffee, Diet Pepsi, work, McDonalds, the New York Times, shopping at Neiman Marcus, fishing, working out at the gym, watching soap operas, and so on. We will, in due course, become hooked on porn too -- if we happen to like it. Will spending too much time at work negatively affect your relationship? Yes, it will. Can Crispy Creme donuts ruin your life? Yes, if you eat enough of them. How watching football all the time? Heard of 'football widows'?

Investing too much of one's extra time and energy in watching porn will probably affect your relationship, along with all the other things that one can do too much of (work, watching football, becoming obese from eating too many donuts, becoming narrow minded by reading the New York Times exclusively, etc.

:100:

One problem I have with children and pornography is that when I was a child (let's say, 12 years old--1958) pornography of any kind was simply not available where I grew up. I had, therefore, no personal, subjective experience with encountering sexual material. What I did do, along with millions of other boys, was mine every possible source -- Sears catalogues, encyclopedias, National Geographic, etc. for any imagery related to sex, however distant, that I could find. Pornography wasn't generally available to me until the last 1960s, early 1970s. By that time I was an adult.

The first encounter I did have was exhilarating. Seeing several pictures of naked men in print was intensely exciting, not because I hadn't seen naked men before, but because this was a 'product for sale' which meant that there was a market of other men who liked this. If, at that time, I could have gone on line and seen 10,000 pictures of naked men and men having sex, I can not imagine how that would have affected my psychosocial development.

It certainly was the case that in the isolation of Podunk Village, USA I was yearning for exactly this information.

One thing though, is that there were plenty of articles about straight sex in popular media which were very available. As a young teenager, the content of these articles wasn't very healthy or helpful because it was out of context. I was trying to draw conclusions from stories about adult sexual relationship problems which had no bearing on my life (at that age). Some of my conclusions were just plain weird.

gross — Mikie

All sorts of normal, common human activities can be presented as "gross", of course. Sometimes the difference between pleasing and disgusting is a matter of minor adjustments in the filming. But some producers do seem to go out of their way to include footage that has to appeal only to a very narrow range of 'taste'.

The Waters film Pink Flamingoes isn't pornography IMO, but at several points, Waters' usual merely 'bad taste' crossed into 'shocking tastelessness'--just a few seconds worth.

Endocrine disruptors of various kinds have become ubiquitous. Very bad. In addition to endocrine disruptors, there are the various chemicals that disrupt genetic expression and development in egg or womb. And then there are the various carcinogens--which doesn't exhaust the list.

All part of our multidimensional environmental disaster!

If maintaining the reproductive viability of the species is a moral imperative then it's probably a good idea to reduce the consumption of pornography in society, but that's not happening. — punos

The reproductive viability of the species appears to be intact on a global level. Are we to suppose that super-stimulating pornography is the cause of less-than-replacement-reproduction-levels? Or is super-normal economic stimulation perhaps the problem?

BTW, probably no sensible person thinks it is a good idea for children to spend much time looking at adult pornography.

Not to me.

May I observe there are a number of different kinds of pornography. Many people consume interior design material the same way others consume sexually explicit material. There are also sports pornography, military pornography, fashion pornography, ad infinitum.

Ok, ok, so I realize you are raising the issue of sexually explicit pornography

One of the problems of a teenager viewing porn is that he will see a lot of unrepresentative body types. In gay porn, at least, an average-looking male is hard to come by. The subjects have uniformly buffed bodies -- every muscle group is at least fairly well defined. (I'm not speaking of bodybuilder models, here.). This is a distorted image of what a large portion of potential sex partners will look like.

The same probably applies to straight porn, which as a gay man, I've spent very little time viewing. Both representative body types of women and the sexual styles which most women would probably prefer appear to be few and far between.

I'm an objectifier. I do look at other men as sexual objects -- in addition to looking at other men as multilayered complex beings. However, if someone is thinking about fucking, multilayered complexity isn't the approach they are going to take.

The sex drive wasn't designed in a feminist sensitivity and diversity workshop. It's pretty basic by itself. When men and women are guided by the sex drive alone, the results are effective, but not necessarily grace filled. We often (but not always) couple our sex drives to our drives for affection, love, nurturing, comfort, and so on.

Pornography is good at depicting basic sex. That is what it is for. Complex cultural works (film, fiction, drama, poetry, opera, dance, etc.) are capable of capturing the complex human experience above and beyond basic sex.

One thing about basic sex, though: there is no such thing as meaningless sex.

One other thing: Early and thorough sex education coupled with emotion education would help people a great deal.

There are "great films" and there are Films we like the most. They may not be the same.

Low Brow Comedy Favorites

The Meaning of Life
High Anxiety
Twelve Chairs (Brooks)
The Producers
Pink Flamingos
Priscilla Queen of the Desert

Midbrow Comedy Favorites

What about Bob
Bob Carol, Ted, and Alice
Play It Again Same
Throw Mama Off the Train
Annie Hall
Love and Death (Allen)
Wizard of Oz

highbrow film

Midnight Cowboy
Casablanca
The Graduate
Annie Hall
Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
Godfather
The Last Detail
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest
The Last Winter (Film Board of Canada)
The Boys in the Band
The Seventh Seal
Koyaanisqatsi
Dr Strangelove
On the Beach
Z (With its dark view of Greek politics and its downbeat ending, the film captures the director's outrage about the junta that then ruled Greece
Brokeback Mountain
Notorious
Dim Sum: A Piece of Heart (Wayne Wang)
Gone With the Wind

Australian

Breaker Morant
A Town Like Alice
Gallipoli
`
And a few dozen others.

Forgot "Cabaret"

now that we are living longer, social pressures brought around by rigorous and longer education, establishing social and financial security, are pushing the average reproductive age later and later in life, which applies pressure for those that maintain health and reproductive viability into their 30s and 40s. — Benj96

True enough, but the age of reproduction affected by social factors (like education and the economy) is a short term factor, too short for evolution to have had any consequences.

BTW, at the present time, roughly 1/3 of industrialized populations will die of cancer, 1/3 from heart disease, and 1/3 from circulatory defects in the brain (stroke). Infection doesn't presently play so large a role in developed economies. Low death rates from infection are not guaranteed, however. Evolution is working on the short time scales of microorganisms. Infection may have a very bright future, unless we find a solution to antibiotic resistance.

But it may also serve as a reason for our propensity for cancers. — Benj96

Do we have a propensity to develop cancer? In 1901 the leading cause of death was infectious disease -- endemic infections like tuberculosis, and acute infections like staphylococcus. Sulfa and antibiotics reduced infections, allowing cancer a greater opportunity. Better food and sanitation led to greater longevity, which gave us more time to develop cancers and heart disease.

we're relatively fast evolving - from apes to humans in, what?, 2.5m years? — Agent Smith

We evolved through a series of species in stages. Some of those stages, like from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens maybe took 2.5 million years, but there were several steps before then. I don't know why the total number of years would be between the first branch of our last common ancestor and us.

Not for nothing do we fit the definition of "a plague species", like rats.

IF what I said in the post above about language being able to start riots is true, should we then forbid people to talk that way?

There is the principle of free speech; there is also the principle of prior restraint. The state can't forbid something from being said on the basis that it might possibly be libelous, criminal, or provocative.

I am probably a free-speech absolutist, in practice. I haven't heard anything recently that I thought should be censored. (Maybe 50 years ago I would have been willing to ban some speech.). I'm pretty opinionated, and other people have all kinds of ideas I think are really bad, dead wrong, and all-round stupid. I don't think they should be enjoined from saying what they have to say. I want to be able to say whatever is on mind, therefore, I'm in favor of free speech.

It's at the border of acceptable ideas where free speech becomes "dangerous". Some people are in favor of sexual relationships between adults and older children. Endorsing man-boy love is pretty much a reputational suicide in polite society. Homosexual activity was, once upon a time, "the love that dare not speak its name." Now it won't shut up. Being a Communist in the USA was verboten in the late 1940s and 1950s. Now it's not a hot topic.

There is no risk today in calling Donal Trump a fraud. What is acceptable changes over time, and with it the contested boundaries of free speech.

But then again maybe there is some sort of biological mechanism in some people that allows speech to push them around in some way, like sorcery. Who knows? — NOS4A2

It isn't really that mysterious. Mill, per your post, spoke of the messages on placards setting off an excited mob. The biology involved is that of perception, thinking, emotional arousal, and group dynamics.

A group of bored people in a queue aren't going to turn to arson, rape, and bloody murder on the basis of a few placards. A group of people who are already stirred up, however, can be coalesced into a lethal mob by speakers wielding just the right set of provocative rhetoric. A group of rednecks, aimlessly milling around outside a Mississippi jail, could be provoked, by speech, to break into the jail and lynch a black prisoner. This has happened often enough.

On the afternoon of the George Floyd riots in Minneapolis, a group milling around the Third Precinct police station were being literally wound up by inside agitators. The speakers weren't creating discontent, they were fanning its flames. Not to long after I observed this, the riot which wrecked that part of town began.

In 1921, a mob burnt down the core of black Tulsa, OK. The whole area was incinerated, and around 300 black people were killed. There is a clear record of how this massacre developed over a quite short period of time (just a few days).

On the positive side, people can be moved to do good deeds or donate more money than they intended to by the deployment of inspired preaching. The short sentence, "This material will be on the final exam" will cause students who get good grades to pay extra attention to "this material".

As you suggest, words don't have magical effects. Language causes things to happen under certain conditions which exist prior to the language being deployed.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1] — Wikipedia

Justice Holmes cited the malicious shout of "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because there were some actual instances of this; the stampede for the doors resulted in many deaths, without any fire being present.

Free speech can, of course. set crowds on fire. Rioting (mob action with no one in control) has been triggered by free, fiery, speech. Or, sometimes, the utterance of falsehoods at a critical moment. If we don't like the rioters, then incitement is especially dangerous. If we are the rioters, then the spark which set off the riot is brilliant rhetoric.

Back in the 1960s I opposed the draft and the Vietnam war. I participated in demonstrations and spoke freely against the administration's policies. My speech wasn't throttled, but it was was routinely condemned as unAmerican or treasonous. The experience of speech suppression in private spaces (workplaces in particular) since Vietnam has led me to be on the side of unlimited free speech. Speech about socialism or communism has also been attacked.

Here's an example of workplace free speech suppression: My social service agency employer held a training session on a method of therapy they wanted staff to use. The presenter began by announcing that the staff were expected to accept what was taught that day without objection or discussion. I, being the usual suspect and designated problem person, duly objected.

The therapy method that was taught was not objectionable; it was the instruction to accept it without discussion that was unacceptable. Now, I didn't object in class. During the lunch break I commented that it wasn't my practice to accept instruction that wasn't open to objection or discussion. For that I came close to being fired.

At other work places, policies were announced with the add-on that there was to be no discussion about it. As a staff lawyer said, "There is no right to free speech in the workplace." Which, of course, is one of the critical places for free speech to occur.

You'd be well advised to take my explanation of Murphy's and Sjogrin's Laws with quite a bit of salt. Sjogrin's Law was made up on the spot, but it ought to exist.

You've identified another aspect of reality. it isn't Murphy's Law that causes it to rain -- it's Sjogrin's Law. Forgetting your umbrella, or even just leaving the house, actually causes it to rain on you. Your lack of an umbrella, or me mounting the bike, causes perturbations in the atmosphere which results in immediate rain. This summer, it started to rain every single time I got on my bike to go to the grocery store.

Systems that apply brakes to passenger cars when they get too close to substantial objects (like the car immediately in front of them) are another example. Elevators that don't move until the doors are completely closed helps keep us from getting ripped apart by being half in and half out of the car when it moves. People hate it when that happens.

I haven't revisited The Last Picture Show recently -- thanks for the reminder, One of the best films ever, imho. The scene does depict everyday anomie rather well.

In the publisher's summary of All for Nothing, it said "since Eberhard von Globig, a special officer in the German army, went to war, leaving behind his beautiful but vague wife, Katharina." Just out of idle curiosity, what is a "vague wife"? I've known a few people whose normal state was "vague".

You know this -- not telling you anything new: One of the aspects of the Holocaust is that the ground work was laid over a long time. Hitler didn't invent virulent antisemitism; rather, he fanned its flames.

If the German people tolerated, accepted, or welcomed the extermination of the jews, they weren't the first group of modern people to do such a thing. Americans tolerated, accepted, or welcomed the near extermination of aboriginal people. Plus we had slavery. And we Americans like Germans, think of ourselves as good people--and are.

We are good people, aren't we?

Ennui — Paine

And anomie?

I think it was the latter. — frank

Which makes more sense to you? — frank

You raised interesting and difficult questions.

I agree that impressively large scale crimes against humanity were carried out in the 20th century, from the Turkish genocide against the Armenians to the Tutsi genocide against the Hutus. But the centuries before the 20th century saw the genocide of the aboriginal people of the western hemisphere by Europeans. Genghis Kahn wiped out a lot of people during his reign in the 13th Century. The history of bad things happening doesn't stop there.

In the big picture, people have not changed. The Germans had good organization and technical prowess at their disposal, in addition to a wall-to-wall social coercion program. Maybe he was the first to carry out killing industrially--not that the method makes much difference to the dead.

Are we crazier now than in the past? No. We've been crazy for a long time. Why? Because we are primates with big brains, opposable thumbs, and ancient emotions that know nothing about ethics, justice, or fairness. We get emotionally twisted out of shape over one thing or another, and then we call on our big brains to figure out how to destroy entire peoples who were just too annoying to tolerate.

What can be done about it?

Back to the drawing board, 10,000,000 years ago? Do it over and this time avoid agriculture, living in cities and everything that followed? No can do. We are collectively screwed. Individually, we can be as good as the Holy Men taught us to be. Collectively, we can't get ourselves organized to fix a tire on a bicycle.

There's always a handy Yiddish word. Pascal knew of Sitzfleisch. The word is German (though widely appropriated in Yiddish) and it literally means "butt flesh". (The meat of your ass, in other words.) But the figurative use of "sitzfleish" means: "The amount of endurance a person has for sitting still on his/her butt for the hours and hours and hours of time that it takes to get important work done."

Sitzfleisch is sort of the opposite of Ants In Your Pants.
The amount of sitzfleisch you've got will directly influence how much work you can produce. How long can you stand it, to sit there and push through? Inspiration is beautiful, imagination divine, and we all love soaring dreams. But sitzfleisch? Ass meat? THAT'S how you write your novel. That's how you compose your symphony. That's how you paint your masterpiece.FLEISCH.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." Does this apply to life as well? — niki wonoto

The idea that "if something can go wrong, it will" reflects the fact that the universe was not organized for our convenience or happiness. We exist, but we have no evidence that the universe actually intended us to happen. It's possible that the universe resents us, and wishes to be rid of us.

We, smart apes that we are, can attempt to arrange our world to our liking, but we don't have the last word. Physics, chemistry, and biology (let alone human behavior) are complicated, and long term results can not be predicted accurately. Never the less, we proceed merrily along our way, thinking everything is just fine, until we come to a bridge and it collapses. We end up dead or near to it. Why?

Well, there were undetected flaws in the construction 40 years ago that were leading to collapse. Finally it happened. It wasn't personal -- the bridge wasn't out to get us. Our being on the bridge just then was a matter of chance.

Now, there is another axiom: Inanimate objects are out to get us." I believe this. Everyone has unpleasant experiences with physical objects that result in injury. Even very careful well protected people are injured by inanimate objects. You go to a soccer game. You are cheering your team. All the happy, excited jumping up and down causes a brick to take that opportunity to fall off the stadium and land on your head. Inanimate object 1, human 0.

I hope this helps explain certain aspects of reality.

What do you think of these thoughts? — Bug Biro

Have you read The Sane Society by Erich Fromm? Pretty good book.

There are people who are crazy without reference to society--people experiencing the severe depression and mania which is often manifested in bipolar disease are an example. Schizophrenia is another, as is OCD and a few other mental illnesses.

Then, as you say, there are a lot of people who have been driven crazy by the crazy society they live in.

However people arrived at 'crazy', living in a nuthouse society makes things worse.

The interesting cases are the very decent, imminently sane people who manage to live in crazy societies without suffering.

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups — universeness

Is that really true? I can't imagine any authority imposed on prehistoric homo sapiens other than satisfying basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. — Shawn

The only authority to which stone-age hunter gatherers had to submit was the authority of their familial group (or possibly a competing group). Ethnological studies of the few contemporary hunter gatherer groups reveals some level of control by elders, for instance.

How effective was this control? Probably it had limited effectiveness, just given our species' predilections. Surveys of skull injuries among catalogued archeological remains show that there was a fairly high incidence of blunt force trauma. That is, injuries from stone axes rather than accidents.

Stone-age people were sparsely scattered. Density presents additional behavioral and policing problems which didn't arise until the Agricultural Revolution and city building--last 12,000 years, +/-. The bigger and more complex the urban environment, the more some sort of state control was needed to maintain minimum levels of order.

The modern world (say, last 600 years) features large and diverse populations operating under various systems of "proper conduct". Maintaining peace, order, and production requires police control.

I hope libertarians are not using Stone Age models to define what will work now. There are various flavors of libertarianism -- like left-wing anarcho-syndicalism. They all tend to be at least somewhat utopian.So here's a free society; everyone knows his place and what her role is. Everyone somehow knows and follows the minimal set of unwritten rules.

Utopias might have a snowball's chance in a cool hell, but take a modern metropolitan area where 20 to 50 million people live, and things will fall apart very fast.

Large populations (millions) do not have the intellectual, emotional, or physical wherewithal to control themselves. That's why we have, and need, states with police power.

My impression is that the way to career success in academia is shooting down orthodoxy and coming up with novel ideas — Welkin Rogue

[I'm not an academic] but my impression is that your description of academia is at least somewhat on target. It's not hard to find an orthodoxy that is flawed; the trouble is coming up with a novel replacement that isn't just as flawed, or worse. Too much of this and we end up with unintelligible (and perhaps just plain loopy) theories in history, literature, social science, philosophy, et al.

Which Red Scare are we talking about? I ask, because it seems like analytic philosophy has been a going concern for most of the 20th century, during which there were two Red Scares -- the first following WWI and the Russian Revolution; the second following WWII. In both cases, the US emerged with an enhanced dominant role in the world. The capitalists were strong, confident, and ready to suppress political deviance, whether in the factory workplace (1919) or the cultural workplace (1949).

Maybe academic philosophers weren't much affected by the Red Scare of 1919. They would have been affected if they had been paying attention. The 1949 (McCarthy) Red Scare was 'scarier' for academic, cultural, and government employees. In '49 it wasn't the union organizers that were getting busted, it was white collar political and sexual deviants. Your basic Hollywood writer, State Department employee, pr commie pinko fag in the Philosophy Department. (I am, btw, a commie pinko fag).

I haven't read a lot of history about what longer-term effects the '49 Red Scare had on academia. At first there was a definite liberal chill, but then..., say by 1969 or 1979, what?

The best model for the market place of ideas is unfettered free trade. No quotas, no diversity programs, no affirmative hiring. Mao Tse-Tung said, "Let a thousand flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend". Seems like a good idea for Academia, but as in China, eventually the management will have had enough odd flowers and weird schools, and the brakes will be applied.

Are you in Academia?

dukkha — Shawn

A Sanskrit word meaning 'axel hole'.

The word has been explained in recent times as a derivation from Aryan terminology for an axle hole, referring to an axle hole which is not in the center and leads to a bumpy, uncomfortable ride. According to Winthrop Sargeant,
The ancient Aryans who brought the Sanskrit language to India were a nomadic, horse- and cattle-breeding people who travelled in horse- or ox-drawn vehicles. Su and dus are prefixes indicating good or bad. The word kha, in later Sanskrit meaning "sky," "ether," or "space," was originally the word for "hole," particularly an axle hole of one of the Aryan's vehicles. Thus sukha ... meant, originally, "having a good axle hole," while duhkha meant "having a poor axle hole," leading to discomfort.[5]

The philosophical up-shot of dukkha is that off-center axel holes can be fixed.

Philosophical pessimists, riding (not trudging along with the peasants and cattle) would rather complain about the annoying thud which accompanies every turn of the wheel then get the fuck off the wagon and fix the damned axel hole.

Pragmatists have a positive, practical view that bad axel holes can be fixed.

all the magic of the invisible hand — Shawn

WTF?

technogurus in Silicon Valley, Stanford, and Caltech who seem to be the positivists of our day and are creating new gadgets and devices that sustain and improve our daily lives. — Shawn

Hey, I like a Mac, iPhone, or iPad as much as the next consumer, but let's not get carried away with paeans to Silicon Valley. [paean = song of praise] Technogurus are hired hotshots who think of things to sell, NOT sustain and improve our lives.

I like the Economist; it's a good source of information, but it isn't the Oracle of Delphi. Of course it takes an upbeat tone when talking about Silicon Valley. It's pro-capitalism. Surprise, surprise.

And yet, what occured to me as rather peculiar about humanity is that we do not submit to this pessimism about life or not all of us at least. — Shawn

Unlike the funny characters in a Monte Python sketch, digging in the mud who pause to discuss political philosophy. we are more or less programmed to keep on keeping on. It's the needs of the organism that drive us onward, not philosophy--that comes after we have made it to a safe harbor and can pause to philosophize.

There's 100,000,000,000+ non-Earth planets in the galaxy. — Leftist

And on several of the 100,000,000,000 worlds some very smart lizard overlords are wondering what more productive use could be made of a blue marble planet, 3rd one from its star, out toward the edge of the galaxy.

Hmmm, is "leftist" and "nihilist" a logical combination?

do not waste your precious time in something worthless as Catalonia-Spain conflict — javi2541997

Actually, the Catalonia-Spain conflict resides on level 1197 of my things-to-worry-about queue, just above the future of Nursultan Nazarbayev, deposed boss of Kazakstan.

I see why BC changed names. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps a good idea but it took me many years to do so. One doesn't want to rush into these things.

hypocritical — SophistiCat

What I was thinking of when I typed 'hypocritical' was countries terming the Russian action in Ukraine as "immoral". Countries like the USA, for instance, who have carried out invasions in the pursuit of national interest. To whatever extent the USA claimed its invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was in pursuit of 'moral ends' was hypocritical in several ways.

So, I don't think the USA is supporting Ukraine for solely moral reasons (though supporting Ukraine seems moral enough to me).

Does this clarify my use of the term?

Calling the invasion of Ukraine an atrocious breach of etiquette and appallingly bad mannered was an attempt at sarcasm which, apparently, failed.

Presumably it is in Russia's interest to possess Ukraine, whatever the Ukrainians want. It is in Nato's and the EU's interest to resist.

That "states follow their interests" is an axiom that has exceptions. At least, it is sometimes damned hard to figure out what the interest is. China might want to occupy Taiwan, but it seems like it would not be int their interest to do so. If they invade Taiwan, it probably won't be an act of national interest -- it will be something else--like satisfaction of a long-standing resentment that Taiwan got away.

hypocrisy. The states and organisations only act when they see it is worthy for their own interests — javi2541997

Why is self-interest hypocritical? Am I being hypocritical if I look after my own interests first? Are you?

States do not have ethics as much as they have interests. The USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because the government thought it was in this country's interests to do so. It didn't make sense to me in either case, but then... who am I?

I think it is in the interests of NATO states to oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine. One could oppose the invasion on moral grounds, but that might be more hypocritical than self-interest. Europe didn't care that much about the USSR invading Afghanistan--who, outside a small circle of friends, did care? But Ukraine is WAY TOO CLOSE for comfort, being right up against NATO's and the EU borders.

The invasion of Ukraine is just appalling -- absolutely atrocious manners. Total disregard of international etiquette. Euro-invasions just aren't done these days! Didn't Vlad get the memo? That's all ancient history. Ukraine isn't going back to Moscow and Catalonia isn't leaving Madrid.

Context is important here. There is a significant difference between a barroom and a classroom, but even so... incivility in a barroom might earn a punch in the nose. Even between friends, incivility might not be tolerated. There is certainly a place for raucous slash and chop discussion (usually lubricated with beer), as long as everyone accepts the terms of discussion.

Otherwise, keep it civil.

Moms for Liberty — T Clark

Oh yes, they will be picketing outside the elementary school. But so will Feminist Fascists For Matriarchy, because Dick and Jane teaches frankly patriarchal dogma, oppresses women and disabled people, and erases lesbians and racial minorities.

I mean, Look: See Mother and Father. Perfectly patriarchal!



Father, Alpha male that he is, has time to play with the dog but mother doesn't have time to sit and pet puff. Dick, helmet on and balls in hand, is playing too. Little Sally is being trained to be a household drudge just like her mother.

Where is Jane? Mothers for Liberty might well ask where Jane is--certainly not being supervised by here mother and father. She's probably out on the street being tricked into prostitution. She'll be seeing a lot of dick.

Your story has been the experience of millions of Americans whose lives have been made miserable by capitalism and the policies of both conservatives and neoliberals. These ill effects cut across the working class, gender, geography, and race. That's it in a nutshell.

Our (working class) experience isn't universal. Another class called the ruling class, or upper class, has a much different experience. The functioning of the economy was designed to deliver, cradle to grave, a steady stream of substantial benefits for the top class, through the labor and at the expense of the working class.

Our loss has been their gain.

The above post counts as a short story (prompted by Athena's mention of the dick and Jane readers published by Scott Foresman) and the use of Spot On is designed to annoy @T Clark.

I was subjected to Dick and Jane's Weltanschauung which bore scant resemblance to my reality.

It dawned on me this morning what a mess we are in because of failing to use the democratic model for industry and failing to prepare our young for good citizenship. — Athena

"Oh, look, Dick," Jane said. "Athena just had a major theoretical breakthrough."

"No, Jane," Dick said. "Athena had that breakthrough before she found this joint 4 years ago. She woke up and smelled the coffee some time back."

"Oh, oh, oh Dick," Jane said. "Let's not be unkind. Athena is quite right, after all."

"Yes, Jane," Dick said. "It is not nice to be unkind. And for god's sake, Jane, stop twisting Puff's tail. Puff already hates you forever."

Dick said, "Athena is quite right; I was only commenting on her statement that she woke up this morning and noticed that we are in a big mess. She did not."

"Oh, oh, oh. Here comes Sally," Jane said. "Sally and Spot On are both big socialists. Let's ask them what Athena should do."

Dick and Jane told Sally and Spot On what Athena had written.

"Oh, dear," Sally said, "Athena is recognizing class and gender oppression at a most inopportune time, given that the Tea Party is going to wreck the US Government."

"Yes, Sally," Spot On said. "But unfortunately, Sally, oppressed workers develop class consciousness when they do, convenient or not.

"Spot On said, "What we need to do is organize a demonstration against the capitalists planning on oppressing us with Artificial Intelligence agents. Do we have any of the 10,000 blank protest signs left that we bought 3 years ago?"

"Yes, Spot On, you do," Dick said. "You have been storing them in my garage, and I'd like to park our three cars in there. It's about time you put them to use by starting the revolution. Otherwise, I'll sell them to anti-democratic forces on eBay and keep the proceeds."

"Right On, Sally, Dick, Jane, and Puff. GO REDS SMASH STATE Soon we will hang the last capitalist with the intestines of the last Neoliberal!" Spot On screamed in a frenzy of revolutionary zeal.

Dick and Jane went into their house, the one with the big garage full of blank protest signs. Jane mixed a pitcher of martinis and Dick rolled a couple of joints. Puff retired to her safe place under the porch. Sally and Spot On went back to their damp basement rooms and started thinking up stirring slogans.

Hang on, Athena! Help is on the way.