The loss of notes is a drag, as I had excerpts from various papers/texts, and had them all organized in this kind of manual tagging system. I'll see what I can preserve from the old one when I make the new one.

Yeah I feared that would happen. I might just start a new one on Google Sheets, which I think would prevent this kind of sharing difficulty in the future. If I get that one running, I'll share it with you.

@Atlas

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TcNWvU0vpHkL1h0PCX7v2x-veI7h4-qi/view?usp=sharing

This should work, if not let me know.

In converting it to excel, some of the images and background colors in the cells were lost. Not sure what else changed.

Just uploaded this to google drive, which should work. It is a numbers file, so if you need it in Excel, just let me know.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iRjN2x0GNnMb2vY26-6kcdIqfbUldJzi/view?usp=sharing

Okay, I think I understand I bit more now. If there isn't any kind of guiding principle at all, then any and all points drawn are that much more arbitrary, dictated by one's whim.

But can ad hoc movement be effectively subordinated to a more constant (yet fluid?) underlying principle? If we take "incremental overcoming of unnecessary suffering" (Anyone know, by the way, where that originated? I heard it from Mckenzie Wark, and various other iterations in other places.) - if we take "incremental overcoming of unnecessary suffering" as the guiding principle, one that is constant in essence but flexible in expression (?), and express it with ad hoc technique (oppressor/oppressed sympathy dialectics), could that not be effective? Ad hoc as a means/micro to achieve "overcoming of unnecessary suffering" as an end/macro? At this point, would "ad hoc" merely semantically not be the best term?

Very nice - thank you for sharing these.

I still haven't read Tractatus, but if the "answer to the riddle is the disappearance of the question" tone defines it, I'm sure I have something to look forward to, especially given the influence you say it has had on you.

I remember feeling this kind of psychic pressure of the external - a realization (?) that everything "within me" I can ever consider knowledge is never more than one to infinity, in relation to an accordingly "unknowable" exteriority. I would imagine that, were this to have happened within more religious circumstances, I may have been inclined to consider it an encounter with X (God, a peek out of Maya, etc.)

In any case, deities in general (as well as various other religious theories) now seem, to me, to be approximations of apeiron - but even that as a rationalization doesn't rule out the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient being.

It seems, to me, that the closest thing to the measure of one's faith is the degree to which they are willing to entrust their existence to X, however thoroughly or thinly they believe in X.

Any of your experiences touch on any of this?

Maybe I'm still not understanding your point, because "ad hoc" seems, to me, to be a wonderful modality (?) to adopt.

If the absence of fundamental principles - which apply, unflinchingly, throughout any and all scenarios - is what you hold as the negative aspect of such ad hoc operation, perhaps I even agree with such an arrangement, but I merely think of such an absence as a positive (my understanding of "positive" and of "negative," as they are both commonly used, is especially unstable).

Maybe my reasoning here comes down to this: when the adhering to fundamental principles obstructs/prevents the realization of the intentions behind the principles, should one take liberties to stray from such adherence? In this case, if the (fundamental) pretext for such considerations is a concern for the one (oppressed), when does switching our concern to the other (oppressor) actually work in favor (overcoming unnecessary suffering) of our concern for the one?

Well perhaps it was a bit too complicated an answer, but this does seem to be a complicated issue.

My intentions are merely to lay out what contingencies seem to arise from such choices. It would be ideal if such a policy could be prescribed off the bat, and then, the policy itself being deemed sufficient, it would only be a matter of adhering to it. But does that not amount to our supposing that the relation being addressed by the policy is fixed in its nature? I'm inclined to believe that, at most, the essence of such a relation (oppressor/oppressed?) may be fixed in its nature, but the circumstantially-dictated attributes are surely liable to change, are they not?

Then, if a policy is to be asserted and remain fixed, it must account for this essence (which also assumes that the essence is, in fact, fixed), withstanding whatever circumstantial changes may be experienced (?).

I don't necessarily believe that all of these qualifications can be completely supported, but I am inclined to believe that, by introducing more factors to be suspended in criticism, alternative pathways may open. Pretty vague, but I do believe it.

Or maybe I am totally off-base and am considering your points in ways you did not intend.

This seems, to me, to be the crux of the matter.

From what little I gather, by means of both personal speculation and testament of others, about the experience of some marginalized person, one who has not been taken into account as a subject by whatever mainstream/"master" narrative that defines their social environment; from what I gather about the condition of such ongoing experience, I am willing to equate such marginalization (intentional or not) to suppression.

This suppression, in turn, can, perhaps, be framed as a being-held-underwater, in which case the gradual demarginalization (by means of political correctness?) can be framed as a coming-to-the-surface, the fresh air of which has been reserved, historically, for those who are/have been taken into account as subjects by the local mainstream/"master" social narrative.

In this analogy (and perhaps I am clutching onto it too dearly, at the expense of optimal expression), is the movement upward, toward the surface, represented by the inversion of suppression? Would the marginalized being, by ceasing their censorship of the kind of expression they deem offensive/suppressive; by ceasing this censorship, would they necessarily be curbing their movement upward? Is this a fixed inverse relationship? Does ground gained by the historical non-subject (the so-called "other?") necessarily equate to ground lost by the historical subject? If the historical subject (the oppressor, in certain terminology; capital M "Man," etc.) is the arbitrator of who is deserving of the title of subject, how can this power be shared? Is that possible?

Back to your point, Terrapin: I, perhaps, can address this from firsthand experience, unlike the matters aforementioned. There are aspects of this kind of censorship that, in as far as I identify with the censored subject, carry with them connotations of total invalidation. That is, if I am as privileged as everyone says I am, is there anything worthwhile (i.e. is any of my "success" the fruit of my work at all? Or is it entirely derived from my genetic and socio-economic circumstances?) about my being qua what-part-of-my-being-is-up-to-me?

Additionally, the accusations of insensitive speech can sting (In as far as you pride yourself on being a good person, I suppose), but I can only assume that such speech stings more on the other side. But, if I understand what you are saying, what of the sting felt by the censored? Is it necessary? Does it amount to anything positive/remedial(?) for both sides? Does it only sting until one gets accustomed to it? Again, is the inversion of suppression promising as a solution, or does it merely smolder the emotions accused of being hateful, and cause them to fester and, perhaps, explode, automatically, through a barrel into a crowded area?

Now, that last question, admittedly, reads quite pointedly - but I do see some serious import in it, as hyperbolic as it may seem.

The best answer I have, of now, is to embrace the sting (the post-oppressor as martyr??), and hopefully it will lesson the suffering on both ends - one of which, I feel compelled to point out, has been suffering (in various ways, not necessarily in every way) far longer.

But ^this^ kind of "A (but really B (but also A (but really B)))" oscillation can, in my eyes, persist into oblivion.

I like your use of "autonomic mind" here.

And this risk - of being taken advantage of, or of losing footing, so to speak - can be thought of as what warrants conscious activity qua attention? As the means of constantly re-rendering the constantly shifting environment, so as to keep said footing?

In terms of the psychic layering (consciousness as one of the components of the psyche?), I have trouble formulating a conception of it. One can argue that consciousness is the first, and hence least informed, line of defense, poised to process the stuff of exteriority that has not yet been processed and therefore needs to be accounted for (?). But one can also argue that consciousness is the last line of defense, to which the material (that the autonomic mind (?) does not already have some account of) is sent to be cognized and digested, so to speak, before being integrated (through habit?), into autonomy?

Or are both ways more or less rephrasing the same thing?

Bit of a ramble there, but hopefully what I was trying to say can shine through.

Well, in theory at least, wouldn't absolute satisfaction admit absolute stasis? If dissatisfaction fuels the micro motivations (to get up off the couch and get a snack) just as it does the macro (to get up off the couch and get a life), then wouldn't the absence of any dissatisfaction - that is, absolute satisfaction - make any action extraneous and unnecessary?

If such a state were permitted of the micro-consciousness (of the individual?) by macro-consciousness (of the species?), wouldn't that run the risk the species collectively reaching (total?) extinction via (gestalt?) inertia?

Interesting post by Scott Aaronson, based on research of a friend of his (the paper is provided, but I haven't read through that yet).

Anyway, it gets into eigenvectors (?) as potentially effective measures of objective moral standards - based on what I got. I don't quite understand eigen-business, but this was thought-provoking nonetheless:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1820

[Admittedly, I did not read through much of the initial content of this thread, much less the entire thing. Consequently, I run the risk of rehashing the already hashed hash.]

Can speech-censoring as a means to mitigate/overcome unnecessary suffering (of those who would take psycho-affective (?) damage from such speech), ultimately achieve such?

Does the censoring of hate speech solve the problem, or does it merely palliate(?)/treat the symptoms of a hateful condition?

If it does (promise to OR actually) solve the problem, does the enforcement of this kind of censoring only need to increase further?

If it only mops up after the symptoms (which certainly has its value, seeing as it can serve to decrease the flow-rates of verbal vitriol, at least in theory), does any deeper treatment necessarily involve the allowance of such expression regarded as "hate speech"?

If any deeper treatment does involve such allowance, what, then, would be the plan? Would attempts need to be made to appeal to the sensibility enshrouded in what we may call the clouds of hate? Can such appeals be made?

If such appeals can be made, at what cost? How far does the offended have to cater to the offender in this scenario ("offended"/"offender" used as provisional terms, seeing as the concreting of such labels only serves to crystalize an opposition that does not seem, to me, to be absolute and irreconcilable)?

If you think such appeals cannot be made, do you also think that the defenses of the offender are impenetrable?

If you think such appeals should not be made, what do you think should be done? Should the offended, or the defender of the offended, continue to correct/censor the offender? Can such be done, effectively, with sensitivity? Or should the offended/defender sacrifice sensitivity in the interest of assertiveness? Does sensitivity need to be sacrificed in this situation?

How much psychic energy does the offended have to spare? How draining is it to have been under such a barrage for the bulk of one's life?

What of the hermeneutics (?) of hates speech? Does the speaker need to be consciously driven by hate for it to constitute hate speech? Or can ignorance/unawareness (unconsciously driven by hate or not) qualify speech as hateful? If the ignorant/unaware speaker speaks and is accused of hate speech, is their ignorance/unawareness reified, in their mind, as hate? If so, how can this problematic equation be remedied? Does this bring us back to appealing to the offender?

Is hate merely repressed if its expression is censored? Does this depend on the (situational and socio-systematic) power dynamics (?) of the censoring interaction?

Are we framing hate as the absence of love? Is it a matter of substantiating a void?

Or are we framing hate as negative, love as positive, and neutrality as zero?

Which aspects of these dichotomies are fixed, and which are fluid?