He's in many ways right that having someone who unconditionally believes in you is really good — Agustino

It took that guy to make you realize that? (seriously). :s

if you don't have that someone, then you must believe in yourself, unconditionally. — Agustino

Will this be successful?

Okay, I don't care if I'm wrong. So be it. — Agustino

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was trying to highlight the subjectivity of depression.

What's the point of posting the Shkreli video? Especially since he says he doesn't have major depression?

Yes, but it's not always something physically wrong with the brain. And even if there is, the brain has neuroplasticity, it can physically change itself with mental exertion in some circumstances. — Agustino

I agree, but I wanted to highlight that depression is not always traceable to one specific cause. My depression, after long, detailed analysis done by yours truly, does not avail itself to one simple cause. I was trying to highlight that point with my comments. That probably wasn't clear. That's a trait of depression, it seems; we try to highlight our own experience at the expense of the experience of others. See my harsh comment bellow...

It's not unrealistic at all. Snapping out of depression is like hitting a switch. I know, because I've experienced it. The same thing looks different after. — Agustino

I've never experienced that, so by your own logic, you're wrong.

Death. Non-existence. — schopenhauer1

So you mean to say:

As I responded to t0m, this philosophy seems abhorrent to me. That conception would mean we would live an Ever Vigilant Existence where we never get — schopenhauer1

death.

A coping mechanism is a way that humans deal with negative emotions, negative experiences, negative situations. — schopenhauer1

I know. I intuited that you meant something negative by saying "coping mechanism". But that's not always the case; sometimes experience presents us with unimaginable shock; PTSD, for instance, or sexual trauma as a minor. In these instances where the offense is incalculable, a coping mechanism isn't a balm to unwilling eyes; it's a balm to an uncomprehending mind. The balm, here, is categorically good.

No No. This is from the parent's point of view. — schopenhauer1

Since when??

(or whatever interpretation of that loaded word you are using)? Suicide is not an option becaus — schopenhauer1

I'm using it via my interpretation of what you're saying specifically in this thread.

uicide is not an option because most people have a strong impulse to live despite pain or negative view of life. — schopenhauer1

Why?

I'll have to explain that later. Too much gathering of my thoughts for that right now. — schopenhauer1

I'm eagerly waiting!

No, in salvation you deny the will to save yourself only. — jancanc

This isn't a counterargument to mine.

Like you deny your will to exist and thus are liberated from suffering. ( — jancanc

Explain? On your own terms, not Schopenhauer's.

compassion requires stimulation of the will (to help another) but salvation requires cessation of the will. — jancanc

This doesn't follow. Rather, compassion requires stimulation of the will to help another, and salvation requires stimulation of the will to save another.

Asia. — Agustino

*Checks Asia for healthy people*

Most of those are weak mentally too. They just never face up to the issues in question. Not fighting and running away isn't the same as being strong. — Agustino

Basically what I said in the part of that paragraph of mine that you didn't quote.

Why? — Agustino

Because it's unrealistic and phantastical.

Except that broken legs are a physical condition, and depression is mental — Agustino

Mental illness is of the brain.

I refused to give up on my faith in love, despite having none of it given to me (on the friggin contrary I can assure you). — TimeLine

Where did you find this faith?

but forgiveness does not exist, rather it is a hope that something like what she has done will happen. It is a hope for the other to acknowledge your pain and the pain itself is really a lack of this acknowledgement. — TimeLine

I don't understand this at all.

I get what you mean when you are saying that draining feeling, but conversely I fear your experience with your pastor is actually what has locked you to carry this assumption on mentorship. — TimeLine

Yes, it absolutely is that. But how can you or anyone say that that is objectively wrong or right?

You can tell a genuinely good person through the fruits that they produce and it is why parables were spoken because confronting the truth is way too difficult for people because they almost automatically go on the defence. That is why leading by example is a form of communication. — TimeLine

Agreed.

You lead by example, yes, but you still maintain a firmness or resolve (such as turning your back or not allowing bad people to defeat you) and that is telling people something. — TimeLine

This brings up the apropos question of where mentorship/leadership is distinguished from equality.

I was literally addressing an apparent typo in your statement that I quoted which was confusing, but I'll respond to your post since it's interesting. Btw, if you want to respond to the other (more interesting) things I posted, feel free.

It is kind of like t0m's philosophy if you look at his responses. He is trying to out Schopenhauer Schopenhauer by embracing the instrumental nature of things. Pain is good because it is challenging, so the line of thinking goes. If you were to Eternally Return to life over and over and over, you would say a resounding YES. These themes of embracing pain as it makes you better, and the Eternal Recurrence are Nietzsche's ideas essentially. He is trying to meta the meta, if you will. As I responded to t0m, this philosophy seems abhorrent to me. That conception would mean we would live an Ever Vigilant Existence where we never get any (metaphysical) rest. Also, to say that the challenges of life makes one better, seems a coping mechanism. Why do people need to be born to face challenges in the first place?

So Nietzscheans go on trying toincorporate challenges, set-backs, and suffering into the hope-cycle. Nietzsche was the ultimate in doing this, thus his wide appeal. A philosophy for the manically life-affirming- like someone who had a lot of cocaine and wanders the mountainous Swiss countryside for a half day and then goes back to the realities that are life and lives out what is really going on- the instrumentality of doing to do to do- surviving, discomfort, boredom, hope-cycle repeat. — schopenhauer1

What is metaphysical rest?

How does saying "the challenges of life make one better" equate to a coping mechanism? What is a coping mechanism?

Why do people need to be born to face challenges? They aren't. People are born. Challenges crop up. There's no epistemology as of yet, given those two circumstances.

Again, the instrumental nature of things makes this line of thinking suspect. It is post facto rationalizing of a situation that is already set from circumstances of birth. It is the only thing to say in the face of this, even it is just a thing to say, as there is no alternative except seeing it in its truly negative light — schopenhauer1

What?

That is not going to be an option for most people. — schopenhauer1

Why champion nihilism and then say this?

I also want to be delicate about this issue because I don't know your state of mind. — schopenhauer1

Thanks for your (non-nihilistic) concern; I'm able to discuss these things; I just post infrequently because of lack of interest, as well as some sort of ADD or something. As well as crippling depression.
:D

I'd say there is some comfort in understanding the aesthetics in what is going on. t0m does have a point in terms that there is a dark sense of consolation in the knowledge of the instrumentality. The hard part is maintaining the vision without backing down, without letting the burn force you into a Nietzchean mania, or trying to ignore it and anchor yourself firmly in the goals. — schopenhauer1

So what's the point for you? The telos?

We are all trapped in depression for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their depression. — Agustino

If someone said to you "my leg is broken! Help!" would you then say, "We all have broken legs for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their broken legs."

There are also healthy people, but they are not here. — Agustino

Where are they? :-| (you mean they don't post on this forum?)

We probably never met a healthy person, because Western society has become very corrupt. We look around, and there are only blind men leading the blind. It is our historical era. — Agustino

Nah, I've met people who seem to have a good amount of mental health. But they're the sort who don't engage with the depth of the human condition. So, yes, those that "are not here".

All that said, how is all of that a response to my statement that I suffer from crippling depression? Given that that was the initial quote from me you quoted.

t is like looking at a red vase, and suddenly seeing it yellow. This is the radical cognitive change the whole Western world is looking for, scrambling for, and unable to find it. It is not a different experience, but a different way of experiencing. — Agustino

That metaphor is unconvincing; you'd need to try something else.

fuck

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/brian-eno-kevin-shields-only-once-away-my-son/?mbid=social_facebook

Was re-reading through Rudolf Steiner's "Philosophy of Freedom" as well as Neitzsche's "The Gay Science", recently. Also finished "The Lurking Fear and Other Tales" by H.P. Lovecraft. Honestly more interested by Lovecraft than yer boys...

exhibit C

If I remember correctly, Berdyaev rejects both monism and dualism; being for him is a symbolic manifestation of spirit. — Janus

Correct. (And my Berdy fanboy-ism is confirmed by the hairs that stood at the back of my head as I read that.)

So, I think its more like some form of non-dualism for Berdyaev. — Janus

Correct

Not sure about Henry, but since he is a phenomenologist, I would suspect he rejects metaphysics, and certainly anything resembling substance ontology. — Janus

Don't know him; would be interested given a more detailed account about him.

What's wrong with being a Berd fanboy? :P — Janus

Ha! No one feeds your ego on TPF, that's what...

I liked Berdyaev's overall approach when I read him, but he is not a rigorous systematic thinker in the way Henry is. — Janus

That's why I like him; I don't do well with systems, which makes me a poor philosopher in modern terms. I join Berdyaev in that position of opposition to modernity.

I'm finding Henry's ideas very interesting, and also that many of his thoughts are developments of the kinds of things I have thought. I had a similar experience with the Berd, in terms of the cascades of soaring insights he delivers. — Janus

The Berd definitely delivers and then some on the soaring Berdian heights. I'm always a sucker for those views, so I'll at least do a google search of Henry.

Well, there is the aesthetic of seeing the "what actually is going on here", which can be said to be the instrumentality of things. I don't mean aesthetic as beauty per se, just a kind of understanding that takes place based on envisioning the structure that is going on. — schopenhauer1

I'm with you, but it sounds like we disagree about the nature of that instrumentality.

But there's not much more bottom you can go other than trying to manically make into something to embrace pace Nietzsche. — schopenhauer1

There seems to be a typo in there; want to re-phrase?

Once you see the hope-cycle, it doesn't go further back. You either find comfort in it, or you don't and you move on to some hopeful this or that. — schopenhauer1

"Hopeful this or that" being more fake hope, or what? Again, where does suicide play in here?

It is just part of the ethical aspect I guess. — schopenhauer1

The ethical aspect of what?

Pessimism can provide consolation. — schopenhauer1

How? (You're following paragraph doesn't give me much.)

I was really just answering your question as to whether art should reflect reality in the context of making a distinction between life and reality. This is related to my reading preoccupation at the moment, which is Michel Henry. He makes a phenomenological distinction between life as lived and the external world (relaity) — Janus

So is this inherently dualistic? According to Henry, or (preferably) you? If so, I disagree. Berdyaev makes the distinction between objectivization and spirit, but it's unclear exactly whether this is analogous to dualism/monism.

Also, I appreciate your Berdyaev references, but I trust you don't take me as some Berdy devotee. :P My philosophy is pretty unorganized at the moment, but still influenced by ol' Berdy.

I'm a bit annoyed that you chose the most emotional and least philosophical point I made for your response; but in the spirit of free speech I'll go with it.

There is an aesthetic beauty in understanding this. — schopenhauer1

You need to define beauty as something inherently hopeless, then. Or inherently futile, or whatever. And not on Shopee's terms; on your own.

One might say that is its own form of hope (the escape from the hope-cycle). I think greater a — schopenhauer1

Again, you need to either re-define hope, or re-phrase. Schopee likes paradoxes, but they only work when intuition validates them.

I think greater awareness of it through dialogue like this has a form of consolation involved. — schopenhauer1

It may for you, but that's a form of escapism.

There is something said about coming to the same understanding of life as another person and not deluding it down because the insight does not fit with the very hope-cycle it wish's to explain. — schopenhauer1

So, not deluding down someone else's hope-cycle?

I never refuted that, and even said thought that was one thing pessimism can offer, a sobering but at least somewhat comforting idea that can be shared with those who are aware of the aesthetic vision it provides. — schopenhauer1

My problem here is that you're a soft-core pessimist. You can't have comfort and pessimism at the same time.

If by telos you mean purpose, I'd have to know what more you mean. — schopenhauer1

Almost; I mean a defining purpose. Something foundational. The hope that turns out to be nothing, which gives way to a false hope, needs to give way to an unexpected hope. Otherwise, suicide is the logical solution. I hate to admit this, but I'm with Camus, but only provisionally. A purpose has to mean something that connects to the experience of life, in all it's fullness, suffering, and nihilism.

As you and others have pointed out, even Sisyphus smiling at his own futility is hope. It is hope in the living out of the futility. Hope of the hopeless futility. — schopenhauer1

But that's not what I intended to point out. I'm saying that, if you find comfort in recognizing the hopelessness of the false hopes mankind sets for itself, you've found the deeper ground for hope itself. That ground is deeper than the over-cited ground of Camus's fake Sisyphus. You descry the failure of hope out of your own hope. Hope only means something to you out of your own sense of hope.

So no, "hope of the hopeless futility" is not hope; just listen to yourself, man. "Hope of the hopeless futility"?

I have an unhealthy tendency to mirror the debate styles of my interlocutors (see what I did there :P ), so I was just trying to parse through exactly what your terms meant, since I found them confusing. I'm still not sure what the overarching point you were making in the context of the OP was, but I do get the gist of your distinctions.

You said no one escapes hope, which includes you. So a logical follow up question is, "what do you find hope in?" Since you haven't, presumably, escaped hope (via your own admission). So, it's relevant, in that it places you within those masses, rather than without.

You assume I have a way out of it or something. — schopenhauer1

I don't assume that of you personally, but it's inherent in your argument, yes.

I am just saying that this is how we operate. We can see the situation, but despite it, hope is what drives us through what otherwise would be unbearable instrumentality. — schopenhauer1

That's an interesting idea; do you think driving through that has a telos? Or any kind of meaning you'd like to assign it?

Also, I noticed your edit about paralyzing depression. I have it, and am currently wrestling it. I'm responding here, emotionally, because I'm with you, not because I think your ideas are inherently wrong.

I see your edit. As someone also trapped in paralyzing depression, my question still stands.

So what do you find hope in? Since you're still here.

Is this a response to me? If so, just your ideas. You seem to find hope in hopelessness.

That pessimist sounds like you given the OP; yes/no?

This is a very comforting view of hopelessness. The comfort of this view actually creates it's own sense of hope.

I have a suspicion that if your Church friends — VagabondSpectre

Old church friends. ;) Not that I wouldn't associate with them, just that I don't anymore, by nature of having "fallen away"... That being said, you'd be surprised; I know a few folks (my older brother included) who, as Christians, are fairly open to these sorts of ideas. The stereotypes don't run as wide as the river of experience...

Without this experience, like Yetis and ghost stories, the extraordinary realities depicted by TP become mere possibilities of what really exists (what we really are). — VagabondSpectre

Hmmm. I would say that if you find TP interesting, it must be because of some glimmer of your experience that resonates with the show. Unless you enjoy it purely on escapist terms.

Without any real evidence each successive extraordinary claim becomes more obscure and less verifiable than the last; less intellectually extraordinary. At a certain depth of speculation, the possibilities become so numerous that none of them seem special, like turtles all the way down. — VagabondSpectre

That might be fine for philosophy, but what about art? I think that's the missing piece in your critique here; art doesn't use your reason; art isn't "robust" and minimal (it can be). Art is primarily seductive, in a sense. It's more immediate than reason; the experience of "what the fuck is going on, why are there two Coopers??" is not only emotional and dramatic, but it does have a philosophical underpinning that grounds the immediateness of the experience. Why are there two Coopers? What does that mean philosophically? Two identities? Someone being other than they claim to be? Someone having an outer (real world) and an inner (philosophy forum) life? But the immediate experience is visceral, not reasonable. Why begin at a (further off) abstract position, when the immediate position for inquiry is, by nature of experience, the now?

I'm all to aware that fundamentally it's all speculation that exists in a space I believe it is impossible to rationally navigate. I do live with the understanding that nothing or almost nothing I think I know is absolutely certain or a ground floor of reality. — VagabondSpectre

What does rationality obtain, then? Robustness? What does that actually mean if it's not certain? If reality, ala TP is not beholden to rational observation, then you would need to let go of that fundamental grounding and search for something else; something not irrational, but something intuitive. Something that begins with, and trusts in, experience.

New evidence of hidden realities such as TP describes could come along, and there is room in my psyche for me to accept it, but without that evidence these speculations of hidden realities do not challenge my current "knowledge" in any relevant or new way. — VagabondSpectre

You actually are precluding the possibility of those new hidden realities by beginning with evidence (presumably of the reasoned/material kind) as the litmus test for their possibility. In other words, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; "I'm open to the unknown, as long as it is measurable".

Have you ever seen or read "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"? (there's a British reboot of the show which is quite good). — VagabondSpectre

No; would I like it if I'm a TP fanatic? :P

It's true that I would like it if these hidden and fantastic truths such as alternate dimensions, the interconnectedness of everything, and a benevolent God, actually were the way things really are , and so the entertaining escapism of exploring these ideas is indeed enjoyable to me. Rationally speaking though they are but flights of fancy... — VagabondSpectre

So what is this escapism drawn against? A cold, harsh world devoid of meaning? A world in which interconnectedness, benevolence, and the like are Lovecraftian abominations? Or, a world in which the escapism of a telos is wrong, and yet, we can find a nice atheistic balance in which the best possible world is found for each individual, until their immanent (and inherently nihilistic) painful death, followed by the heat-death of the Sun? Escapism from what? A belief in life generally? A belief in meaning? A belief in human value?

Possibilities like eternal souls and alternate dimensions are among the most interesting and appealing ideas that are out there, but they're also among the least substantiated ideas that are out there. — VagabondSpectre

How many religious texts and commentaries have you read?

I suppose art could reflect nothing from reality, but how then could we ever interpret it? — VagabondSpectre

Through imagination! The mother of worlds...

If I had to sum up my beef in a single sentence, it would not be that TP paints a picture of reality which I object to, but rather that Lynch is merely painting a picture of his own broad uncertainties (epistemic, existential, ontological, etc...) and so doesn't himself know where he is going. We're just along for the thrill ride on his roller-coaster of confusion, and into the apparent darkness of the unknown. — VagabondSpectre

Fair enough; I don't count that as a beef; I count that as a valuable contribution to the human condition.

Where he is currently at is perhaps encapsulated in this quote from Windome Earle when he describes the White lodge: — VagabondSpectre

God, I hate Windome's character; badly played and so unessisary to the plot. And I would guess that that dialogue was written by Frost, not Lynch.

In 25 years, since, do you think Lynch might have changed much? — VagabondSpectre

Considering I'm almost 50 years younger than him, I have no idea. :)

To say that things don't make sense is not to say that they "don't work out the way we anticipated in our lives" but is to say that we cannot understand them, that they do not fit into the context of our general human understanding of reality. This "general human understanding of reality" is precisely the understanding which is given in terms of the intelligibility of the world delivered to us by the senses. Things are real to us when they make sense; and are surreal when the normal (causal) connections between events cannot be seen to obtain; that is when they don't make sense. — Janus

Alright, that makes sense.

I didn't refer to the phrase "doesn't make sense" at all in that response to your question. — Janus

You said:

I agree that life often doesn't make sense; in fact in a certain way I would say that it never makes sense, — Janus

But I guess that's not the exactly the same, apologies.

Do want to prohibit others from extending and developing what they find in your OP, and insist that they not stray from exactly how you want to interpret the ideas you have presented there? — Janus

I would have hoped you would know the answer is no; did it not come across that way?

Perhaps as an atheist with a conscientiously constructed epistemological world view (one that is required to support my existential, moral, and emotional outlooks) I'm forced to rebel against this kind of ontological assault because so much of my understanding of everything is therefore at stake. — Noble Dust

I think that's it. The theistic sense of something "larger", "higher", etc, is actually compatible with the sense of the unknown. Apophatic theology has more potency vs. kataphatic. (sounds weird to suggest that TP would be compatible with theism. I'm sure any of my old church friends would be appalled by the show).

I wouldn't say the show was totally unsatisfying though, it just didn't satisfy me by offering me a useful understanding of things in the traditional sense. It turns that story telling model on it's head and instead communicates precisely that there may be a hard limit to the usefulness of our traditional understanding of things (our materialist, empirical, western understandings). — Noble Dust

Sounds like Lynch was successful then. :P

Here's a great example. In the following scene — Noble Dust

I actually found that scene completely hilarious, but I know what you mean, it was definitely a foreshadowing of the darker moments of confusion to come.

Personally the deeper reason I enjoyed the show, I think, is because of my current state of belief/philosophy. I'm kind of in limbo, and the sense of non-real limbo in the show actually has a weird comfort to it for me. I find it necessary to explore that place, whether in the show, my experience of it, or the realm of ideas. The scene where Diane sees herself standing by the motel entrance, with it's almost complete lack of ambient sound, was actually beautiful to me. Terrifying and beautiful at the same time (the hair on the back of my neck literally bristled when that happened). I would say the same for the horror of the last scene of the season.

Art does reflect reality (what else should/could it reflect?) — VagabondSpectre

Potential reality, for one.

Which one is that? :-O — Agustino

exhibit B

Why? :’( — Agustino

exhibit A

Because obsession and control are not good?

That's good? :-O — Agustino

No?

Sounds...obsessive and controlling.

Eh? How? You ain't a mod.

Haha, I thought it was maybe too harsh. I'm such a nice guy.

in fact in a certain way I would say that it never makes sense, insofar as life is not susceptible to being understood in terms of the deliverances of the senses. — Janus

Interesting distinction; when I say "doesn't make sense" I mean it colloquially; things don't work out the way we anticipated in our lives. I don't literally mean "sense" as in the five senses. I'm not sure why it would be necessary to address the question that way.

So art, inasmuch as it is art as opposed to mere representation, never "reflects reality", it reflects life, which is by no means the same thing. — Janus

I get that, but again, I'm struggling to see how you took the phrase "doesn't make sense" in order to make that point, when clearly that colloquial phrase isn't trying to make that distinction.

I binged watched the entire original series and most of the recent season in a few sittings (and the final few episodes as they were released)... — VagabondSpectre

I did the same thing, lol.



Interesting that the atheist here wants the comfort of the known, and the theist here relishes the nihilistic unknown in the show. :P

But on a surface level, I can understand why you weren't satisfied with the show. A lot of people weren't. I might be in the minority, I don't know. What appeals to me (along with the real as surreal piece that I talked about) is the classic Lynchian dream-logic. I have pretty vivid dreams, sometimes where the dream feels more real than the reality I wake up to. The last two episodes of the series felt just like that in a weird way. The surrealism felt...real. I guess at the end of the day I can only philosophize about the show so much; I enjoyed the show on a visceral, aesthetic level, which is how art should be enjoyed anyway. Lynch hit a deep nerve of some kind for me. Not the case for everyone.

So, Vagabond, do you think art reflects reality? Should it?

What I mean here is that there is no interest extraneous to the work, which makes the work beautiful. — Cavacava

I'm not sure how an "interest" would make a work beautiful, but isn't context something extraneous to the work that makes it beautiful, as you say bellow, more or less?

The beautiful work of art is a product of its context, but it is not a beautiful work of art unless it transcends that context, unless it is avant-garde, in this sense. — Cavacava

Yes, there no single correct interpretation of a work of art, but some interpretations are better informed than others and several interpretations may share similar points. — Cavacava

Better informed about what? If there are lower and higher levels of being informed (education, if you will), does that mean there can only be better informed and less informed interpretations of art? If so, how would that matter if no interpretation is "correct"? What's the value of being better informed about a piece of art if there are no "wrong" interpretations? Why not just experience art without any information? I'm not sure you can have "no single correct interpretation", but then also have a hierarchy of interpretations. The hierarchy suggests an underlying objective value; "no right [and therefore no wrong] interpretations" doesn't suggest value beyond the subjectivity of the individual interpretation.

What I'm trying to tell you is that I wanted to help him access his own core; — TimeLine

That makes more sense. My arguments about this not being very probable still stand, but I get what you mean now, and I do think it's possibly a worthy goal, if you're willing to face the potential burn out. I'm just speaking from experience within the Church; this sort of relationship, with good intentions or ill, happens al the time in that context; it's often emotionally, mentally, and spiritually draining (if not manipulative) and doesn't warrant the desired result. Which is what you experienced, and I'm not trying to highlight that, I'm just saying it as a general principle. My views on mentorship changed when I learned my youth pastor was suicidal, sexually addicted, and a victim of abuse, and once I knew those things my eyes were opened to how he was carrying on the cycle of abuse (emotional in this case, but there could have been more I wasn't aware of). His faith, principles, and desire to mentor others didn't break the bonds of the cycle of abuse. He still contributed to the cycle, despite his efforts.