One of my first exposures to really nasty interaction on the internet was in the comment-section under YouTube classical music videos. Who knew so many people had such very very strong, and inordinately negative opinions about violinists, oboists, conductors, composers, whole orchestras, and (especially) lead opera performers?

Anonymity is certainly one element in the negative sniping; another is a feature of rhetoric: Subtraction is easier than addition. It's just easier to fault another's opinion than it is to validate and make positive contributions. Or, writers think they come sounding more incisive and discriminating in making negative arguments (or comments) than in positive ones.

Moderators help a great deal. Eliminating habitual flame-throwers helps a great deal.

What are people's place in this? It is practically inescapable and so, are we working for it, or it for us? — schopenhauer1

That's a very good question.

People think they are using Facebook and Twitter. Actually, Facebook and Twitter are using them.

It's maddenginly intertwined, and I wouldn't blame people for being distraught from these implications. — schopenhauer1

Live as we have lived it has been intertwined for a long time, and it has become much more difficult to grasp the whole.

You know, the telegraph was invented around 1840. by 1861, Lincoln had a telegraph office installed next door to the White House in the War Department. He learned how to use the telegraph for command and control purposes pretty quickly. (The Union Army laid telegraph lines as they
moved, keeping the generals in touch with headquarters.)

I don't disagree with what you're saying but I didn't say everyone had a horse. — schopenhauer1

No, you didn't. But here's what happens. You said something about horses and this caused spooled memories of what I had read about horse use to unspool. I couldn't help it. Stuff has been sitting in my head for years, just waiting for a trigger to unwind it.

Within a short amount of time from when the Model T came out, I am pretty sure most people had a vehicle. What a crazy change from a literally horse-drawn society. Think about how much infrastructure related to horses was completely taken out from this shift. — schopenhauer1

Not so fast there. Cars did replace horses but not quite overnight.

Until the beginning of the 20th century, horse power was ubiquitous in all sorts of applications, but most people didn't own a private horse if they didn't live on a farm. Horses were expensive and their care time consuming. In large cities people rented horses by the ride -- not so much on the horse, but in vehicles pulled by horses -- carts, wagon, buggies, street cars, etc. Large cities had heavy horse-drawn vehicle traffic, leading to traffic jams--grid lock even.

The electric subway or trolley / street car arrived before the automobile. For a short period of time, horses, autos, and electric street cars vied for space--the horse losing out. But cars had disadvantages too, especially in cities where there were other options. They were expensive, they were not all that easy to operate and maintain, roads outside of and between cities were not good, and there was not yet a service station on every other corner.

Horses remained in common use in cities for hauling freight short distances until reasonably good trucks arrived in the late teens, early 1920s.

Car ownership is apparently becomes less common among young urban dwellers these days, in cities with half-ways tolerable mass transit. Cost must be a factor, as well as insurance costs and parking.

My parents were born in 1905 and 1906 (died in 2007 and 1993, respectively) and witnessed or experienced several transitions and major innovations: from horse power to motor power; the innovation of planes, radio, movies/talkies, refrigerators (vs. ice boxes), dial phones, television, computers, space flight, antibiotics, small pox, polio, mumps, measles, and chickenpox, scarlet fever; economic collapse and economic boom, 2 world wars, kitchen microwave ovens, cake mixes--and more!

They seem to have taken all these changes in stride. Now that I am an old man I wish I could talk with them again about what they thought of all these changes. I came of age in the 1960s (sort of; it took decades). Yes, the 60s were great. We were young, in college, healthy, reasonably happy, in and out of love, full of youthful arrogance, and all that. For gays living in backwater midwestern towns, the 1960s sexual revolution didn't begin until 1970. Yes, it was wonderful.

Before the Internet there was the very very big computer and in time the scrawny little personal computer. I was much taken with the idea of the HAL9000 computer in 2001 (the movie, not the year), then with the 1980s Macintosh computer--which of course had less computing power than my washing machine has (figuratively speaking). My old Mac Plus resides in its own chapel. Still an itsy-bitsy computer helped make the 1969 moon landing (Apollo 11). The Apollo 11 computer was novel in that it ran on silicon instead of vacuum tubes. I was 15 when Kennedy proposed landing a crew on the moon (and bringing them back, alive); I was 23 when it happened. Yes, it was as stirring as you might think it was.

My take on the Internet is that it actually is a great resource for information, while also being a big sewer pipe. I've never gotten into FaceBook, Twitter, TikTok, or most other social media. Too much of it Is drivel, or worse--a shit show.

BTW, the landing of the Perseverance ranks up there as an amazing feat. Lots of missions to mars ended in failure, but arriving in orbit, detaching the lander rocket from the space ship, then that rocket slowing down to a pause, hovering above the surface and lowering the rover to the surface, then detaching and getting the hell out of the way--hey, you witnessed a very very big deal.

you just haven't been around long enough to realize it. This is why everybody should have a natural respect for older people — synthesis

I'm 75; just how old do I have to get?

So your argument then, is that the trial of Galileo had no effect on the subsequent development of philosophy or science? — counterpunch

If you look at the lives of the four great astronomers who followed Galileo, it would seem that his heresy trial did not bring astronomy to a screeching halt.

Copernicus, 1473–1543, proposed heliocentric system
Galileo, 1564–1642, heliocentric system, moons of Jupiter...
Kepler, 1571–1630, established that the planets' orbits were elliptical
Cassini, 1625–1712, measured Mars' and Jupiter's rotation time; discovered 4 Saturn moons
Huygens, 1629–1695, improved telescope, theory of light, discovered Saturn's moon Titan
Newton, 1643–1727, theory of forces including gravity

Bear in mind as well that other things were going on that could interfere with the development of science. There were political upheavals going on among the many fractious kings and princes of Europe. There was the reformation, among other things. (Luther didn't know much about astronomy, and heard only hearsay about Copernicus, who he thought a fool.).

Are you a Catholic by any chance? Is it that you're offended on behalf of mother Church - that she could possibly have made an error? Sticking with the infallibility thing, huh? — counterpunch

I am not now, nor have I ever been Catholic. I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist. As for infallibility, the pope didn't become 'infallible' until 1869-70, when Vatican I decreed that the pope was infallible when he spoke “ex Cathedra” – or from the papal throne – on matters of faith and morals. What the pope had in the 16th century was quite substantial secular power behind the ecclesiastical curtain.

So you don't see an epistemological evolution of humankind over time; no progress of knowledge from "less and worse" toward "more and better" - that the Church interfered in? Because for me, it seems like they dumped a huge boulder in the epistemological stream in an attempt to block it, but only succeeded in diverting an irresistible force. — counterpunch

Of course there was epistemological progress over time. And revolutionary change (in whatever field, in whatever time) often meets with stiff resistance until the revolution becomes the new establishment. What Galileo proposed was "contrary to [what appeared to be] common sense". It wasn't just the pope who found the idea of the earth whirling through space unacceptable.

Religion has been tried and found wanting on many fronts, continuing up to the present, whenever religious leaders become custodians of sacred ancient viewpoints. Galileo demonstrated that we were not the center of the universe. Darwin explained how we evolved from primitive primates (and worse). Freud revealed that we aren't even in charge of our own minds. Etc. These demotions in status meet with resistance.

If you want to blame nuclear proliferation on the 17th century pope Urban VIII, fine. Or blame all the popes from Peter to Francis if you want. But it would be a good idea to demonstrate HOW Pope Urban and successive popes managed to control and direct scientific and technical developments in immensely complicated fields.

then they discovered scientific method, and the Church declared it a heresy — counterpunch

When did the Church declare 'scientific method' to be heretical?

True, Galileo was found to hold a heretical heliocentric belief. However, Copernicus came up with the heliocentric theory a century earlier in 1533, and it wasn't kept a secret from the then-current pope:

In 1533, Johann Widmanstetter, secretary to Pope Clement VII, explained Copernicus's heliocentric system to the Pope and two cardinals. The Pope was so pleased that he gave Widmanstetter a valuable gift

Further, Copernicus' book on the heliocentric system was published around 1543 or so, about the time Copernicus died at age 70 from the effects of a stroke. Maybe Galileo just rubbed his current pope, Urban VIII, the wrong way.

But why blame the church for everything? One Claudius Ptolemy is responsible for the long-running geocentric model of 'the universe'. Why don't you blame this Roman Egyptian for setting science back--a millennia and a half!?

In any event, the earth continued to orbit the sun, and science continued getting done without a whole lot of interference from Holy Mother Church. (Of course there was some interference in all sorts of activities: The Pope and his minions, and the Protestant big wigs too, all had their fingers in numerous pies all over the place.

That's how deep this issue is. It's of existential import. — counterpunch

Yes, I totally agree. We are in the unappealing position of needing to wonder how long our species will be around. It might not be for long.

What if they hadn't declared it a heresy? What if they'd embraced it instead? Our natural evolution would have unfolded. This isn't our natural course. We are not "who we were meant to be." — counterpunch

This might be where your train goes off the rails. Holy Mother Church was never in charge of whatever constitutes the "scientific establishment". Science marched on, whether the pope thought it was heretical or not. Our "natural evolution" had unfolded long before Jesus, Mary, and Joseph came along.

Human beings have been a damned, doomed species from the get go. Our Original Sin occurred when we emotional volatile apes added intelligence, curiosity, and blind ambition to our species. After that it was only a matter of time before we would get our hands on clubs, arrows, bullets, and atomic weapons, and gas ourselves with CO2.

Sure, much that happened in western culture after the Renaissance (and the Enlightenment) contributed to the situation we are in. Everything from double-entry bookkeeping, the expansion of credit, harnessing steam, global exploration, capitalism, the French Revolution--it all figures in. The history of cultures just can't be reduced to some simplistic explanation like the pope deciding that Galileo's theory was heretical.

Makes you proud to be a 'mercan. — Banno

Well, sure; why not? The technology involved in the placement of Perseverance on Mars is pretty impressive, much more refined than the also successful technology used in Lunar landings.



QUESTION: How are people pronouncing the thing? per-SEV-er-ance or per-se-VER-ance? I vote for per-SEV-er-ance. Let us hope it does persevere.

the Church made an enemy of science — counterpunch

The alleged war between science and religion is greatly exaggerated in the telling. My guess is that now most of the offensive maneuvering is from the science side rather than the religion side (except for the lunatic fundamentalists). As for providing a system of reality, even some deep-fat-fried-fundamentalists rely on science when push comes to shove (like the reality that that big lump might kill them).

The role that many religious people assign to science is 'understanding how the divinely created universe works'. This approach doesn't look for magic or miracles in the cosmos, apart from the event of creation. A second approach is to operate two systems of reality side by side and separate. There is the reality of science and the reality of God (or Gods). One may earnestly pray to God for healing, comfort, and health, at the same time one seeks competent medical treatment. Where the science reality touches the God reality varies from person to person, situation to situation.

A third approach is to earnestly accept scientific reality and to nominally accept religious reality. This is probably the most common approach. Nominal religion doesn't confer many advantages, apart from 'cover'. Of course there are some people who nominally accept science; quacks, for instance.

As for life on Mars, maybe we'll find evidence, maybe not. It has not been a hospitable place for life for a long time, and the discovery of life-evidence is probably a matter of improbable luck. Maybe there are microbes or monsters deep under Mars surface, but so far no big drilling rigs have been designed, sent, landed, and operated to find out.

Our expectation/hope/fear that life arose not only on earth does not depend on Mars, one way or the other. Earth is one speck in the cosmos; life on Mars would make 2 specks. Not a big deal.

We should most anxiously worry about whether we will survive long enough to solve our problems here.

So you think that a positive emotion must entail a negative emotion?

This isn't rocket science (we are not dealing with moving masses). The reverse should be true in your scheme that terrible grief should lead to immense happiness, and joy should be followed by sadness. That isn't how my universe works.

In my universe, there is a 'base line' of emotion which is neither positive nor negative; it's neutral. Neutral isn't bad, it's just... in the middle. At rest. Various causes (events, memories, people who stimulate our gonads, nice surprises, bad surprises, people who scare us into action, etc.) stimulate an intensity of emotions which are no longer neutral. Emotions are not as specific as proteins, enzymes, or cell types. Emotions are complex, not simple as in; happy, sad, love, fear, and so forth.

The movement of emotions in my universe is between arousal and rest. Intensely negative emotions once aroused will eventually subside -- not into their opposite, but into their resting state--present but not active.

Any movement towards the "positive" must have an equal movement back towards the "negative — synthesis

Why? How? Where did this come from?

Spiritually grounding by shutting off all the media — Paul S

The benefit of shutting off the media can't be over-stated. The various 'platforms' used to interact are not designed to be beneficial to us (even if they can be). They are designed to generate traffic and exploit us to make money.

You are using too shallow a definition of happiness. Surely when Jefferson wrote the sentence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

he wasn't suggesting something on the order of "you just met the one of nicest, most beautiful girls ever and she actually likes you!" Of course, finding an exciting partner is a very good experience, and everyone would like that. But Jefferson was plumbing deeper water, drawing on John Locke's

"In A Letter Concerning Toleration, he wrote that the magistrate's power was limited to preserving a person's "civil interest", which he described as "life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things". He declared in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding that "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness." [snatched from the jaws of Wikipedia]

.

Some of these good things are granted to us--life--and others are obtained collectively--liberty, health and the 'indolence' (ease, comfort, or pleasure) of the body. Striving to obtain these good things individually and collectively is the first part of happiness; actually obtaining and enjoying them is the second part.

So, sure -- one part of happiness is (privately) feeling good. And the other part is being productively and publicly engaged.

it's actually hard to understand that the majority of students back then were far more conservative than the hippies that are now described as to be the dominant group back then. — ssu

You are correct. I was a student at a midwestern state college in the 1960s. The student body of my midwestern state college had no hippies; it was conservative--socially as well as politically. We were also politically inert. There were no protests to speak of. A sociology professor who began his sociology 101 classes with provocative readings was lucky to get a weak reaction, let alone outrage.

My guess is that a lot of colleges are still fairly placid places. There are outstanding exceptions of course, where everyone is on somebody else's thin ice.

One thing I don't quite understand is why college administrators are so vulnerable to small hot-headed gangs with a burr up their butt about transphobia, homophobia, incipient fascism, racism, et al. Have the administrators inadvertently believed their own bullshit? It seems like they would have the wherewithal to deal with a dozen students who wanted to deplatform an instructor in the 1-member Kyrgyzstan Studies Program for offending some twit in campus Antifa gang.

It sounds to me that arguments about what constitutes "right" and "wrong" are mere opinions — Darkneos

You are reducing a significant question to a matter of mere personal whim.

Morality is the distilled product of humans trying to settle on common rules of right and wrong. There are some major exceptions, but most people have agreed over time that arbitrarily killing people is wrong. Rape, theft, arson, and like acts are likewise considered wrong. We recognize that IF we are going to live together peaceably then some acts have to be condemned and punished. We also recognize actions which contribute to peaceable life together--love, loyalty, generosity, flexibility, and so forth are considered right.

No manageable moral system will cover everything. About many issues, like whether you should paint your house white or yellow, are areas where mere opinion rules. Do you prefer labrador retrievers or collies? Mere opinion. Gray cats or yellow cats? Apples or oranges? Rayon, nylon, or polyester? Pastrami or peanut butter? All mere opinion.

considering we made up morality — Darkneos

"We" did make it up; that doesn't mean it is merely arbitrary and capricious opinion. It's is also true, especially in your case, that your mere opinion will not outweigh everybody else's.

I attribute some of my worst experiences to family and I'm still working on myself to erase the negative impressions created during my growing years. — OneTwoMany

Of course! Family is where we all come from, and we are approximately as screwed-up as they are. Good, bad, and indifferent genes have been biologically transmitted; good, bad, and indifferent ideas and practices have been socially transmitted.

It's not so much that I was conditioned by so many lies, as it took a long time to figure out that much of what I thought I knew was actually false--mistaken, inaccurate, mythical, misleading, wrong, and so on. For example, you can be anything you want to be isn't a lie as much as a myth--not to be taken literally. Actually, nobody ever told me that--expectations were too low. So that was one lie I missed out on.

I seemed to have absorbed a lot of "non-reality" growing up. Hollywood reality, maybe. Or religious magic. Villager idiocy. Whatever it was, all that crap, I took as TRUE whether it was intended that way or not. A lifetime has been required for decontamination.

Santa Claus was good while he lasted, but the hope for some sort of imaginary gift-giver, some sort of sugar-daddy, lingers on.

You are conflating romance, love, and marriage. The first two may lead to the third, but not necessarily. It is in the marriage ceremony that we agree to love and care for each other in sickness and in health, for better and for worse. And, worth mentioning, "marriage" isn't merely a ceremony. It's a contractual arrangement sponsored by the state for the purpose o encouraging stable families. Once married, you are supposed to make a good faith effort to care for each other. Of course, lots of people do no such thing, which is one of the reasons a lot of marriages fail. Another reason a lot of marriages fail is that a lot of people believe their own bullshit about romance and love.

Don't take this the wrong way: I'm totally in favor of romance, love, and marriage (if a couple wants it) but things work out for the best when people understand what it is that they are feeling and know how deep their feelings are (or are not). As the joke goes, you could wade through many people's feelings and not get your feet wet.

What say all you really smart people? — synthesis

Some people over-value their cognitive resources and under-value their affective or emotional resources. It's through the limbic part of the brain that we "feel good", and are motivated to do much of anything--good, bad, or indifferent. Some people who don't think about how to maintain good emotions end up in the ditch.

Has your intelligence helped you to become a better person, a more balanced individual, more content, or has it done just the opposite? — synthesis

Of course it has. Or, if one is a thoroughly wicked person then one's intelligence helped one become a really bad person.

There is a huge exception, though, to claiming full credit for one's personal success or failure: Genetics, environment, outside interventions, and chance events all contribute to our personal outcomes. Finding one's self in a position where one can fully utilize one's intelligence and experience sometimes involves a certain amount of luck.

I don't know why Jack Cummins thinks that compassion has been "thrown into the rubbish bin of philosophy ideas." Compassion doesn't get a lot of airplay on this site, but we are hardly a big part of P philosophy.

We don't talk a lot about mercy or forgiveness either. We could, but we generally don't. Those topics are much more the province of religion. Maybe lots of philosophers are writing about mercy--I wouldn't know.

A lot of religion is a cluster of emotions and memories which add up to what the believer experiences internally. Some of it is sweet, some of it is bitter, some of it good stuff and some of it is baloney. All of this 'religious affect' is inside the head. It's one piece of religion.

Another part of religion is action -- enacting the commandments or principles, or teachings. Praying is an action. Eating the Eucharist is an action. Giving alms to the poor is an action. Shoveling the snow off the old people's walk next door is an action. They are both real -- the affective and the effective. Personally, I give an edge to the effective--the stuff that people DO. The comforts of religion are affective, but the works of mercy are effective. Never mind about faith vs. works -- that's another can of worms.

You didn't ask me, but I don't see why you are having a problem with "compassion". The minimum definition is 'concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others'. In that usage compassion is a state of mind. "Having compassion" (for refugees, for victims of horrible diseases, for the homeless...) is 'feeling concerned'.

The feeling of compassion and 50¢ will not get you a cup of coffee. It won't advance your admission into heaven, either. Ebenezer Scrooge (A Christmas Carol) did not even feel compassion for the unfortunate. "Are there no prisons? Are the work houses full?" he snarled.

Enacting compassion is what is important. Actually doing something to assist those you recognize as victims of significant misfortune is what is important.

Do compassionate acts need to be affiliated with compassionate feelings? I say no. If you feed the hungry and house the homeless you have acted compassionately, even if it was done to improve your reputation. If good PR was your motivation, then you have received your reward, as Jesus put it. In the larger ethical tradition in which Jesus stood, feeding the hungry and housing the homeless is still important--whatever the motivation. (Jesus being God had inside information about motivation; The rest of us should not worry about motivation. We should just ask whether the hungry were fed, or not.)

Some people are motivated to act compassionately because they do not want to go to hell. Some people worry about the purity of their motivation. They feel guilty if they feel pleasure in helping other people (See: No good deed goes unpunished).

Why should atheists act compassionately? For the same reason that believers should: Because they can imagine what suffering is, and can understand that if not saved by good fortune, it could be them lying in a ditch. It could be them starving. It could be them with metastatic cancer, etc.

But I do see it as independent of religious contexts because its importance is not based on any necessary belief in God or particular set of spiritual beliefs. — Jack Cummins

It can be independent of religious context, certainly. But there are far more people whose ethical direction comes from religious teaching than there are people who get ethical direction from philosophy, per se. Combining Bhuddist, Abrahamic, and Hindu totals around 75% of the world population.

Philosophy seems to be more suited for defining what a good society is like, than is religion (in my opinion). Religion may be better for motivating virtuous individual behavior than philosophy might be, but philosophy can (presumably) perform that task as well. The difference between the two is that religions fund teaching and philosophy as such does not. Pragmatists, Stoics, Epicureans, Existentialists, Nihilists et al are not offering regular instruction, as far as I know.

I do not know whether compassion has been dumped into the rubbish bin or not. Personally, I don't look to philosophy per se for guidance on acting compassionately. I rely on the Gospels here.

However one thinks about compassion, or however one comes to act compassionately, the critical part is to DO compassion. Dig a little: find out what needs exist in your community; find out about the severity of need; find out who is addressing the issues; find out what you--an individual--can effectively do.

I don't think it is at all difficult to identify bleeding, open wounds in the body politic. Really, one has to avoid information to not know what it is that people are suffering from.

In Matthew 25, Jesus states the terms of Judgement: 35 'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

These are examples not an exhaustive list, but any one of them is a good starting point.

Compassion takes practice -- not just to do well, but to develop the desire to be compassionate. Compassion needs to be planted and cultivated.

To quote a line from Phil Ochs, "I'm sure it wouldn't interest anyone outside a small circle of friends."

The actual importance we ascribe to a life increases to the degree they are part of our life (as opposed to a theoretical, abstraction). There will soon be 8 billion people; an estimated 150,000 of us die every day--all sorts of causes. To their family and friends, each of these lives and deaths is significant. Outside of that circle, not so much.

Still, we try to put some force behind abstract, theoretical valuations of persons. We do that more to protect economic and political stability more than protecting individual relationships among small circles of friends. We do that because we know stability and security are protective of individuals--particularly ourselves and our small circle of friends.

Do I highly value people I know? Of course. Do I highly value the people who I know only from a headline, "33 people killed in a Bagdad market bomb blast." Honestly, no, but not because I de-value them. There just isn't the necessary connection of personal knowledge.

I don't know about other people, but I don't have the capacity to feel badly about 150,000 individuals dying.

They lowered taxes on the wealthy. That made no sense. — frank

Very true, and they greatly increased the deficit by continuing larger discretionary expenses and decreasing income. Of course the Covid-19 stimulus packages contributed to the deficit, but there are two or three trillion dollars above and beyond that. Republicans used to be committed to balanced budgets and debt reduction. For that matter, many Democrats did too.

Problem is, we can't keep cutting taxes on the wealthy without cutting spending -- if you want a balanced budget and debt reduction. A lot of discretionary spending (apart from mandated expenses) Is in the military area; the wealthy who own military supply firms (like Martin Marietta, Raytheon, etc.) are the prime beneficiaries (assuming that the average American is not actually benefitted in any significant way from increased military spending). Certainly Americans are not actually that much safer for all the money spent.

Bernie Bros are a faction because Sanders represents the kind of representative that we would like to have voted for, but was/is almost never on offer. There have been just a few others like Sanders.

I would expect some differences between an open vote and secret ballot - for any group of people where volatile issues are in play. There are many days in which I call a plague down on both the Democrats and Republicans, but over the years (not just since Trump) the Republican Party has become more extreme, more out of sync with its longer term history. There used to be such a thing as "fiscally conservative / socially liberal Republicans". This major portion of the Republican Party rejected Goldwater in 1964, but then in the 80s Reagan's faction moved the party to the right where it has pretty much stayed.

Trump enabled a further rightward shift (for some, into the 'crazy' zone). We'll see what happens next. I expect that the Republican Party will not move toward more liberal social policy. As far as fiscal policy goes, they have shown zero fiscal responsibility.

Once anti-Sanderites crawl back under their rocks and stay there, we won't have to call them anything.

How can you tell the Trump Republican politicians from Republican politicians being held hostage? How much difference is there? They are all just so many peas in a pod.

Bernie Burners?

Do intelligent women ever? find average to a little bit slow men attractive? — TiredThinker

Of course that happens. But attraction depends on more than an assessment of intelligence. The force that through the green fuse drives the flower has something to do with it. "Finding attractive" may not be simple but maintaining a long-lasting relationship is much more complicated. Brains or not, a similar approach to money management helps a lot. Success at sex matters. Economic security helps. Et cetera.

I haven't read much Dostoevsky (shame shame shame). Say more about his feed-back loop observations, would you.

2/6/21 - 9:04 p.m.

I had got into a negative state of mind prior to my experience of getting knocked down by the bicycle. Strangely, I had been in a most atrocious mood on the day when I got knocked down by a car. — Jack Cummins

Over the years I have had a series of running and biking accidents (starting in 1983). These resulted in broken bones, painful muscle injuries, and wrecked bikes. One of these crashes could easily have been fatal. The common theme in all of these accidents was being in a distracted foul mood--so foul that I was not thinking straight or even paying attention. These were clearly my fault.

I didn't find a solution, apart from not riding for maybe... 15 years. (I don't drive.) I'm in a much better state of mind now. I wish I knew what cured me so I could put in a bottle, but whatever it was is a mystery.

Around 4 years ago I got a new bike and have been happily riding again to do errands and just for fun. I don't get lost in angry ruminating while riding any more, and I pay attention.

2/6/21 - 9:00 p.m.

I do think that what we experienced in life affects the whole way we think and form our ideas. — Jack Cummins

Absolutely. The pragmatist philosopher, William James, thought there was a connection between behavior and emotion. He posited that fear could be amplified by danger-avoiding behavior. Are we running because we are afraid or are we afraid because we are running? (He wasn't claiming that going out for a run won't make someone fearful--not in itself, anyway.) Some very fearful people reinforce their fears by behaving in excessively cautious ways. The cautious behavior validates their fears.

"voluntary laughing" or "joyful dancing" can improve mood. Breathing deeply helps bring about relaxation.

Experience shapes cognition, too. Shopping in a supermarket (without getting hit by a bicycle when departing) presumably has a subtle, at least slight effect on our thinking, positive or negative. Driving on a crowded highway would too. Work tasks (a huge variety), household tasks, recreational tasks -- all sorts of things are likely to affect our thinking. Performing a difficult task successfully is likely to strengthen our sense of confidence; exercising executive agency is likely to strengthen our sense of personal 'efficacy', the belief that we can actually accomplish goals. (The reverse would be true too.).

Glad you are OK; better that way.

feel like some kind of vagrant — Jack Cummins

I get it. There are so many public areas that are devoid of life under the various Covid-19 cautions.

I had quite a bad yesterday and even got knocked down by a bicycle on the road. — Jack Cummins

Oh no! Were you walking or were you on a bike yourself? Did you get hurt--scraped up, lacerated...? Getting run over by a bicycle is not as bad (and probably not as final) as getting run over by a bus, but I dread it myself.

It just feels like we have to find meanings and not give up. I had also been reading the thread on reasons for living and that seems to be about finding solid, logical reasons for carrying on life. — Jack Cummins

We are certainly advised to find meaning (or make it up). Whenever I try to do this, I end up with results that I do not find personally compelling. Life pushes us forward and we go on OR it doesn't, and we are not here anymore. Life's insistent perpetuation seems to work across the spectrum of all species.

Life is its best reason for carrying on. Reasons for living that we devise are after-the-fact. If they help, good. If not, OK. Life keeps pushing on. If life depended on good reasons, we would not be here.

Life--whether it intended to do so or not--gave us an active inquiring intelligence. We WILL look for meaning. And we will find it or we will make it up. We want meaning, and we also want to be happy -- whatever 'happy' means. (I have even fewer clues about how to be happy than how to find the meaning of life.) Do stuff that makes you happy. Maybe that will help you find meaning. Even if it doesn't, it's better to be happy than be miserable.

local time: 1:41 p.m. February. 6, 2021

So that leads me to wonder whether life can be viewed as an experiment. — Jack Cummins

Who is the subject of the the experiment; who is the experimenter? You? Us? God? Benevolent (or not) overlords?

God made the World in six days flat
On the seventh he said, I'll rest
So he let the thing into orbit swing
To give it a dry run test
A billion years went by
Then he took a look at the whirling blob
His spirits fell as he shrugged
Oh well, it was only a six-day job. Rhymes for the Irreverent-Chad Mitchell

My opinion: Life is not an experiment. It is a largely unscripted experience of very mixed quality.

It was queried whether we were being indoctrinated. I believe that we were adopting feminist ideas because we were all critical of sexism. — Jack Cummins

Were you against sexism because you had first hand experience as the victims of sexism, or were you indoctrinated by others who were, or thought they were, first (or second) hand victims of sexism? I'm not suggesting that you (plural) should be sexist; it's just fairly likely that the men in the group were probably not first hand victims of sexism so needed a push in that direction.

Consciousness of exploitation (class, race, sex, orientation, etc.) is usually acquired from first hand experiences, and/or it is acquired through teaching, discussion, reading -- indoctrination. My consciousness as a proud gay man (back in the halcyon days of gay liberation) was greatly aided by indoctrination. My consciousness as an exploited worker (mostly during the presidency of Ronald Reagan and George Bush I) was acquired largely through indoctrination.

For me, it's less a question of whether one is indoctrinated, and more a question of WHO is doing the indoctrination, and toward WHAT end. IMHO, there is way too little working class indoctrination to balance out ruling class indoctrination.

One particular one is how some radical lesbians have been fairly hostile to transgender people. — Jack Cummins

I generally stay clear of radical lesbians. My experience with them hasn't been very positive.

Lesbians in general tend to have more complex sexual histories than exclusively gay men. I don't know exactly why that is, but it is probably related to the available roles that women have had open to them, and the way women in general socialize (which is different than the way men in general socialize).

Some radical lesbians and some heterosexual women both have been very hostile toward transsexuals. I have my doubts about trans-genderism in general, and the deeper one gets into politico-sexual theory (radical and not) the murkier it can become. Like... mud?

There used to be a Friday night coffee house for lesbians in Minneapolis (held in a church basement). the radical lesbians in the group disapproved of lesbian mothers bringing their very young male children into the space. Women-only -- period. No XY chromosomes allowed.

So, there are many possible issues and debates, and they are all relevant when thinking about the whole nature of prejudice. — Jack Cummins

Indeed.

Here's a quote I like by a lesbian writer:

There's nothing better for a city than a dense population of angry homosexuals.

Lots of people here born in warm, snug, semi-posh academical families with ”progressive” values, seemingly. — Ansiktsburk

Warm, snug, semi-posh, academic progressives--hmmmm. Yes, please. Unfortunately I missed the boat on that one.

But then you add the word "seemingly".

True enough, progressives (whether they are warm, dry, and academic or not) are not perfection personified. Neither is any other group on the continuum between troglodyte and enlightened.

So what?

" I'm not a racist, but..." — Kenosha Kid

"I'm not a murderer, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." (attributed to Mark Twain)

I think that the idea of 'cleansing' of prejudice is a bit problematic as a metaphor. It reminds me too much of the whole racist of the idea of ethnic cleansing. It also conjures up images of antibacterial gel and disinfectant, as if being applied to our thoughts and feelings. — Jack Cummins

It's not problematic a bit. Your memory associated the word "cleansing" with "ethnic" and we are off to the [horse] races. I used the word "fumigating"; when I typed the word, I remembered that Zyklon B was used to fumigate insects and rats from food storage areas. It was invented by Fritz Haber (1868 - 1934). It was also used to fumigate Jews in the gas chambers. Oh, oh -- Fritz Haber must be a very bad man. Well, no--he also discovered how to make nitrogen fertilizer from air (Haber-Bosch process -- Nobel prize, 1918). It is said that 2 out 5 people on earth owe their existence to Haber -- because his discovery enables the world to greatly increase food production. Are you going to avoid Bayer aspirin? Bayer was part of I.G. Farben--the manufacturer of Zyklon B.

Just because we free associate one word with another, doesn't mean there is an operative connection there.

I try to be critically aware of how I feel about groups of similar people.

Yes, I am biased, I am prejudiced -- not severely, but still. I have been reasonably successful in not enacting negative feelings towards groups of people. I disapprove of people entering the US illegally, however it is done; establishing footholds with anchor babies, evading immigration authorities, marriages of convenience, et cetera. I have become prejudiced toward immigrants, particularly South American ones. Worse, I suppose, is that I am reverse-prejudiced--favorably disposed toward other illegal immigrants -- Europeans, Asians, and Africans. That said, I don't seek out platforms to express anti-immigration views or act negatively toward immigrants, even ones that are probably undocumented.

One of the issues brought up during the BREXIT debate was the number of immigrants in Britain. One group was very unhappy with all the Poles that were in their community. My first thought was "what could be negative about Polish immigrants?" I thought. Many cities in the US have had large Polish neighborhoods for a long time--Chicago and Detroit for instance. But then the whole US has been an ethnic mixmaster for a long time. Britain not so much.

I hadn't ever come across the idea of any gay bars being exclusive to any specific ethnic group because I don't think that there are any in England which are. One thing I am particularly aware of is the way in which gay people who are of African descent often have an extremely difficult time within their families and in their communities. — Jack Cummins

We can probably thank Christian and Moslem missionaries for Africans' difficulties with homosexuality. Some Africans (specifically, Ugandans) I've talked with believe such a thing as homosexuality simply doesn't exist among them. African American communities have a much stronger representation in very conservative Christian denominations than in liberal ones. Gay black men in fundamentalist families/social groups have a tough time finding acceptance there.

I have only been in one British gay bar, so my sample is 1. In the US, gay bars in cities like Minneapolis do not have large enough minority population to support exclusively black gay bars. Chicago, New York, and LA do, however. I should add that the bar culture seems to be fading--not just because of Covid-19, but also because of hook-up apps like GRINDR seem to be faster, cheaper, better--for a quick hook up, anyway. Were I 35 and not 75, I'd probably use GRINDR too.

critically aware — Jack Cummins

That is the crux of the matter.

Humans are probably not born "pre-loaded" with a set of highly specific biases and prejudices, but we may well be born with a propensity towards being biased or prejudiced, one way or another. And then we seem very prone to developing bias and prejudice as we develop. (There are many items in the list of cognitive biases, for instance.) In addition, we have preferences, dispositions, personality traits, orientations, and so forth -- some of which may be pre-loaded, some of which we develop later on. Add the unconscious mind which isn't readily interrogated.

The idea that we can be cleansed of our biases, prejudices, dispositions, preference, et cetera is a non-starter. Frankly, I don't want anyone fumigating my mind for any reason.

That said, behavior can be, and is, subject to at least some social and personal control, and behavior is where the rubber of prejudice hits the road of discrimination. Then there is the feedback loop between behavior and thought. The loop may strengthen or weaken biases, depending on various internal and external factors.

Deploying housing policy which forces identifiable groups (like blacks ) into ghettos is a behavioral intervention which enforces prejudice. Integrated housing is also a behavioral intervention, first intended to improve conditions for black people, but secondly to bring about more casual, normal interaction between blacks and whites.

Another example: Gay bars which encourage/accept a racial/ethnic mix create what may be a singular opportunity for gay men to get to know ("know" in the Biblical sense) other men with whom they might never come into even casual contact. Sexual interaction may decrease prejudice. Gay bars which are rigidly white or black may maintain prejudice.

Class prejudices are not as popular in public discourse these days as racial ones, but a lot of policies are directed toward maintaining class advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I'm in favor of maintaining working class prejudice against very wealthy people, and radically decreasing the advantages of very wealth people (like, by eliminating their wealth).