This is a question which applies on an individual level and on a social level, the extent to which we are destruction towards ourselves individually and towards others, and other lifeforms. — Jack Cummins

Joseph Campbell said myth had to help us psychologically reconcile an unavoidable fact, that life feeds on life. We're very hungry animals for all kinds of things, whether food, sex, love, status, types of experience, types of knowledge and the list goes on. Such things require energy/mass conversion which might generically be framed as a kind of destruction for the sake of renewal/maintenance.

Getting the balance right such that one person's consumptive acts aren't t by the standard of "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" undesirable is challenge. But this is a particular stance which can differ from person to person. We also might get off in a battle to the death (zero sum) of the winner eats the loser. Come (e)at me bro...

If the advertisement cannot act upon the human body, how can it shape minds? — NOS4A2

Isn't this comparable to saying words that form concepts in the minds of people have no possible effect on the actions of those people. Language does not shape minds? Neither can visual stimuli move us. Specific orchids can not dupe wasps (mindlessly) to mate and therefore disperse their pollen?

You don't think a young child, who has had a McDonalds Happy Meal and a toy, would not see a giant McDonalds billboard and then start crying out for McDonalds. But yet this advertisement does not cause anything to happen? What is advertising for if it doesn't do anything.

Advertisement is not a force, though. It cannot push people to this or that outcome, whether good or bad. It cannot create anything, let alone demand or waste or an impact on someone’s health. — NOS4A2

Advertisement, as appearances (eg. sexual selection), might have shaped more species than we can count. Don't advertisers hands/minds shape advertisements?

Sight/perception does not mediate action (force) of choice? It has no bearing on whether you bump into a pole or fall down a well, whether you go to grocery storer #1 or #2.

Is a colorful fig in some jungle an advertisement for the animals who eat figs?

Maybe it works like karma. For every troll action there is a troll reaction, like waves on the surface of a pond slowly diffusing. If the reactionary amplifiers quiet, we might be able to hear something else.

Did I just amplify the amplifiers? Are they like the borg, entities of a collective one? What is really going on, beyond the fun or tedious drama is a mystery.

Would anyone be willing to pay that amount for something like that? Why? — gikehef947

You know why. If you have more money than god you can diversify your asset basket in all kinds of fun luxuriant ways. Maybe you can own a few fractions of something stupid yourself, like a piece of energy devouring void (NFT), as a hedge against inflation... because fear tells you to diversify to keep up with the Joneses. There is never enough and you have to run to keep up. Or the heart wants what the heart wants.

Are you not a collector yourself? What is hiding in your closet? What blips and dots of an equity monster is writhing in your retirement account, squeezing the blood from human like organisms? A piece of the Amazon... Why spend $1000 dollars on a sofa when you can sit on the floor. Why spend $800 on a mattress when you could just sleep on a futon? Why rent a house for $3000/month when you can assemble a tent under an overpass on the urban outskirts.

Germany's Bizzare Obession with Polar Bear Photos

It's inane stuff but this is the Lounge.

Teddybär A 200 page limited edition book of photographs of Germans posing with Bear (suit). SOLD OUT

What would that look like? Nuances as in...? — TheMadFool

:razz: Well, you've presented an ideal mathematical scenario (neat nuance) which may have helped form Malthus' original argument. But is it the case that food production is always arithmetic or that population growth is always exponential (can one model the numbers otherwise)? Did Malthus look at empirical data also and does the same relationship pan out that way?

Would we call the Irish Potato Famine an example of a Malthusian trap?

I guess my question boils down to, how the output (population) can outpace the input (food)? — TheMadFool

I think an answer to this is still pretty basic, as any case of famine would show. The demand for food overtakes the supply (which cannot catch up) and a threshold is reached were folks (animals) begin to die off.

Photograph Caption:

This is an old black and white photograph of a group of what looks to be whitish Europeans, 20 or so folks, dressed very respectably in suits, dresses and top hats. Maybe mid 1900s. They look like members of the business/elite class. The women are holding flowers. The setting is snowy. There is a polar bear wearing a top hat standing upright the middle of the photo, who has smile of a Golden Retriever.

Obviously something is wrong. They all look happy and festive and yet there is one of the most intimidating/aggressive species of bear in their midst, rubbing shoulders. There is obviously something wrong. What kind of bear can sport a smile that is so doglike?

I guess my question boils down to, how the output (population) can outpace the input (food)? — TheMadFool

It can't. Food is a limiting reagent of population. There is probably more nuance to Malthus argument.

Malthus observed that an increase in a nation's food production improved the well-being of the population, but the improvement was temporary because it led to population growth, which in turn restored the original per capita production level. In other words, humans had a propensity to utilize abundance for population growth rather than for maintaining a high standard of living, a view that has become known as the "Malthusian trap" or the "Malthusian spectre". Populations had a tendency to grow until the lower class suffered hardship, want and greater susceptibility to famine and disease, a view that is sometimes referred to as a Malthusian catastrophe. — Wikipedia: Thomas Malthus

The difference between humans today and animals that exploit an existing food source (which might cause a boom and bust population cycle) is that we have very sophisticated ways of growing the food supply. We also can decide to not have children and save more cake for ourselves. As to whether these sophisticated ways can weather the future is still a question.

In the bigger picture you can't grow if someone is gaining more than your growth. — Tiberiusmoon

The big picture is way too complicated. It's about competitive advantage of businesses (or just individuals) on a global/local field and the matching patchwork of national constraints upon those businesses/people. Which governing entities have leverage over which other entities from policy to natural resources?

It is easier to focus on our individual growth (or just survival) as we find our place by luck and effort in the jungle of our local economies, the big picture be damned(?).

There are forces at work (like our fondness for the taste of fruit, beef and other luxuries) that favor naive ignorance about the conditions and trade-offs which create those luxuries. Crude exploitation of labor on one hand can lead to great gains. Businesses can get hand outs at the level of policy because those making the policy have great stakes in the growth of business.

But I'm not sure how relevant my response is to what you are asking. Our well being is all inextricably linked together and hopefully we can manage to respond in a way that doesn't cause a collapse of the national system, so to speak.

Maybe global sustainability is the word (and hope) rather than growth.

The American economy seems to be rife with shady business practices. Just the other day the internet bill for my parent's jumped from something like $140 to $500+. The sales person gets you a special 1 year deal but what is the likelihood that you are told upfront what you will pay when it ends. Then somehow, because you get to argue with them on the phone, you magically get to reinstate the special deal and you have to do this every year. Why don't they just say: "No! Your cheap rate has ended. Pay or fuck off."

Then there was Wells Fargo insanity a while back. Employees were opening extra accounts for customers without their knowledge just so they could incur extra fees. All the while, if you have substantial money in the bank, it's being rented out for the bank to make money. So we get to pay fees for others to loan our money out.

From the point of view of the customer we're being swindled but from the aggregate cost of mass consumerism we see, what we think is good for us (cheap goods or the compound growth of accumulated dollars loaned for growth) is presenting us with global problems, like climate change, pollution, labor exploitation and resource depletion.

Aw, that's no fun. You haven't seen any bears recently then, eh?

Photography... the artistic cheat, more consumptive, more about taking than making. An in-game picture of Gorilla Games Horizon: Zero Dawn virtual world above. A news outlet has been tricked into showing in-game photography as if it was mundane photograph. What's the difference if you can't tell the difference at first glance?



Guingamp, France 2011, River Walk. There is something about crawling ivy that is aesthetically satisfying, even though its a noxious grower. Kudzu... where are you?

The universe as a library of all possible books.

The number of books about god must be atheist's sexual exploits with Pamela Anderson could not fit in our universe.

What about the authority of the original post? Does a great sense of humility and openness underlay this inquiry into freedom with respect to the often clueless/useless experiences of others.

Or can we reject it all, wholesale, because we ought to reject all authority. Upon what authority?

Is there no contradiction rejecting all sources of authority, whether inward and outer? What guides us then?

There is possibly a very long list of the situations/factors/conditions which give rise to depression.

Society is quite depressing from my point of view. Despite technological marvels everyone is continually being squeezed to propagate the cycle of economic growth. It's a kind of unsustainable ponzi scheme. We're told we need to be successful but at the same time that very drive for energy accumulation, enforced by our societal standard/status competition, is eroding global resources/stability.

There is no job that can justify its gratuitous resource waste and yet folks cannot be allowed the right of the security to be housed, to sleep in a bed, clean themselves, et cetera.

Life is insane. Why wouldn't depression be common?

If a Bodhi meets you in the wilds of Alaska become taller by picking up a log. Talk the Bodhi away with a loud confident voice. You could say: "shoo Bodhi, shoo". The typical advice is never to run from a Bodhi quickly, causing a stir. Casually disappear yourself from a Bodhi's presence, with a slow and cautious grace.

Great articles, excerpts and quotes. I especially like Hume quotes and one would wonder if any comparable expression of relief by social activity or from nature for mental disturbance was given by Nietzsche. I'm not sure serenity, contentment or happiness is at all compatible with whatever Nietzsche was advocating with such phrases as "Will to Power" and "The Overman."

It would've never occurred to me to call contemporary statue tippers iconoclasts but it fits with the original spirit of the term quite well.

Dying for one's beliefs as a choice, as is the case with the dramatic trial of Socrates, is interesting. The extremity of such an act in the face of death might be absurd/irrational/mad to many. If one could imagine an alternative history where Socrates gave up his work (the public practice of Elenchus) to remain alive, would he remain the so called "father of Western philosophy". It's kind of a great mythic/legendary opening to the movement of Western philosophy. But he was kind of old, so maybe there wasn't much at stake. Maybe he was tired of feeling his bones rubbing together.

There is a point beyond which philosophy, if it is not to lose face, must turn into something else: performance. It has to pass a test in a foreign land, a territory that’s not its own. For the ultimate testing of our philosophy takes place not in the sphere of strictly rational procedures (writing, teaching, lecturing), but elsewhere: in the fierce confrontation with death of the animal that we are. — Costica Bradatan, NYT Opinionator: Philosophy as the Art of Dying

Philosophy as an Art of Dying by Costica Bradatan

Good question, if posed innocently?! Who can discern your sincerity! You must sit quietly and observe your breath, the bellows rhythm of your respiration, as the flow of the universe. Know that you are one with the dancing bear.

[img]http://

An innocent mind must be properly conditioned to listen in order to perform for the benefit of other innocent minds.

Yet such a view directly contradicts the fact that Eros—being a god—can-not be the cause of anything bad; hence, Socrates must now recant his earlier disparagement of μανία [ manía ] and instead extol the virtues of madness. — Daniel Werner: Plato on Madness and Philosophy

This is the kind of fact one must profess as a matter of convention, less you risk getting in trouble like Socrates did. How does one square this in the face of the mythical shenanigans of the gods who appear to be just powerful, unfathomable and mad versions of humans, susceptible to same instinctual frailties/ecstasies, like becoming jealous, seeking revenge, while using mortals as their means. If the gods had a hand in the accidental tragedies of mortals why hold the view that Eros (the madness of love) cannot be the cause of anything bad?

First rule of scary as shit gods... don't gainsay them for fear of reprisal. They might shoot you with a love arrow while at the same time deny you the object of your love. Talk about evil.

I am not sure about having original hypotheses or even if there was great future 'pay-off'. — Amity

Iconoclasts! The movers and the shakers, any of those, can be condemned by the current era conservatives to uphold the status quo as a matter of faith or power. If the wench doesn't drown, she's a witch, and therefore must be burned at the stake.

Does one listen if they are caught in the movements of acceptance and rejection? Is one listening if the new is being filtered through the old? Surely not. — skyblack

How can one understand what is being said without comparing it to the known, then to estimate it's potential value for acceptance or rejection on the basis of what is discovered by reason or known from memory to be good or bad?

If Herman Hesse's passage was read aloud or written in original German (if he wrote it in German) to us non German speakers, we could not begin to listen (as some would have us listen) until we learned German. What is the exercise of language and learning but an evaluation of the new through the old?

Do we require language (connected to the network memory of our past and its associations) to listen?

Socrates gadflying in public, totally cray cray. — praxis

The internal voice (the Daimonion) that told Socrates no whenever he was about to do something wrong sounds far weirder than his method, which was probably more annoying than crazy. But maybe it's just a creative take on what we call the conscience (though one doesn't audibly hear it). Greek society then, as much as society now, was all kinds of cray cray, given that everybody was running scared about speaking against the gods and slaves and pederasty were a okay.

When in Athens, circa 399 BCE... go watch the chariot races, after watching Soc drink Hemlock.

Calling someone insane/crazy is sometimes a casual but still ambiguous compliment when the implied context is shared between two parties.

Example: Alex Honnold is insane/crazy for free climbing El Capitan. This could both convey a sense of awe and envy in some people given the high probability of death if a mistake is made. Death defying feats require courage and skill, things which are generally commendable. A high risk move with incredible pay off, if successful, might be complimented with "crazy" by the average person who would never take such a risk.

Example: Elon Musk's investment in sending humans to Mars is insane/crazy. Maybe commendable, as an achievement, like climbing El Capitan, but also incredibly stupid/wasteful from the point of view of intractable problems at home. Are there good reasons for sending humans to Mars? How would sending them to the moon be any different?

I'd like an example of a crazy/insane philosopher. The heresiarchs of the old days, those who questioned institutional reality (Christian cosmogony) with original hypotheses were possibly insane/corrupt by the standards of the time, but there was great pay off for future generations. Newton was into magic and alchemy.

Emil Cioran seems crazy, insofar a pessimism might arise from an illness (the body inflammed) or from tragedy. How could a serious pessimist like that exist and ought you really call him a philosopher rather than a poet. Or is it a kind of poets play/humor that is detached from his character, an artistic salve/work for the condition he was in.

Well, it simply means that there's something out there, perhaps a quality, I'm not sure what, that's universal [present everywhere and everytime] — TheMadFool

There is the popular notion that other animals can detect an oncoming natural disaster before it is apparent to us, whether due to air pressure changes, rising water tables, et cetera. Not sure how well studied the phenomena is, if at all, but maybe that means we have the capacity to sense the same thing with our bare senses if we could tune out competing stimuli. Can humans detect air pressure changes? Seems the theory stands that some kinds of desensitization you describe helps to free up the ability to pay attention to other/new stimuli. It's about reducing cognitive load, an adaptation to keep us on our feet, ready for what is coming next.

There is possibly a universal stimuli, being everywhere in the universe potentially sensible, the cosmic background radiation. But that is just kind of like the stuff angry god must be atheist is talking about, stuff that is potentially sensible depending on the nature of the apparatus and focus of the sensor.

Edit: There is also metaphorical woo in the Advaita Vendanta tradition about the universal sound of God, related to the syllables AUM. Maybe it is just white noise (joke).

Allow me to walk quietly in your shadow — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Just running my mouth, shooting from the hip, inane, bolshy and benign shots. :pray:

Dang! Do you give lessons? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Nature gives the basic lessons. Trump would give you lessons but you'll probably have to pay the entry fee to Mara Lago and then some.

The advertising funded media corporations and freelancers are the one's to give more sophisticated lessons, or the entities of the attention economy who have more insight about who we are then we do and who have a line into our psyches via our electronic pocket parasites.

It would explain why we feel so alone, so abandoned perhaps? — CountVictorClimacusIII

It's the new expansive view of the cosmos that had displaced us as the center of the universe that might explain some of this anxiety. The distances against the limit of the speed of light is kind of depressing. The vastness of space, the quantity of worlds out there and being stuck by gravity to a single orb in an uncrossable ocean. Further that these distances are growing.

No one is texting us from across the expanse. Where is the universe's social media feed?

I like the notion that humans left an embodied world (God) as they increasingly developed the memory mediated self. Maybe animals still live in the embodied world, where the dissection of the self and the world has not happened. The dawn of consciousness is a kind of curse but since we're already here, this is the party we have to attend. Might as well build a god (a mummy daddy) to replace the one lost.

Funny thing is that superorganisms by historical example are always smarter than the component organisms. — god must be atheist

There is no way you can make this distinction. Smarter compared to what?

And at the collective level, a step scale upwards... we might have the intelligence of slime mold or a dinosaur. It might take a small comment from a political nut job to wipe us out. We're all the embedded cells of a non-human superorganism.

The true way is not to fight at all but to camouflage oneself, infiltrate the corpus, lay eggs and flee.

But your response is not driven by an emotional reaction? Not like an innocent bear. You're keep going on and on about how everyone has a corrupted mind... it stands to reason you're not excluded.

Then you also project an assumption (not conditioned by corrupting knowledge) about what it is like to be a bear.

No need to reply. But your poetry is kind of interesting, though dour, uncharitable, melancholy and nihilistic. The corruption has moved into my bowels. I must seek a toilet.

(wrong example. not only the wrong end of the stick, but it's the wrong stick) — skyblack

Apparently not, since we now know that a bear isn't corrupted by conditioned knowledge.

a mind that is common to all humanity. — skyblack

But are you included or excluded as one who has a corrupted mind? I would be surprised if you alone could make that designation.

Well, I can vouch for what it looks like in the corrupt cloud of unknowing. It would be better if we (the corrupt) didn't fear the unknown so much, didn't project a version of the world that isn't true but helps us along anyway.

It looks like everyone is playing a kind of patty cake, from the ants growing leaf mold to the golfers of the PGA hitting little balls across picturesque landscapes, to the anonymous and abstruse dialogues of this philosophy forum. Forms arising and falling away, transacting agents with there great and little dramas. Does it really matter what happens, as if there was any real control beyond the little self's daily decisions.

If a bear eating salmon in a river is an example of a kind of mind corruption (conditioned knowledge) all I can do is shrug my shoulders. I would much rather be like a bear salmon fishing, with no relationship to a past or future self that engages a ceaseless anxiety, supposing that is the case. There is just life in motion, pain and pleasure which comes and goes, no concept of death or something to die.

The OP could jettison "corrupt" and "innocent" for different qualifying terms, like virtuous versus virtueless, skillful versus unskillful, logical versus non-logical, et cetera. Not much to be gained by giant black and white categories reminiscent of the church or court of law.

Lord Huron has dropped a new album



I swore that I'd become a better man for you and I tried
Tried to change my ways and walk the line you follow
I bore a flame that burned a thousand suns for you but it died
Told you I could never love somebody else but I lied
Mmm, I lied
Mmm, I lied
I told you I'd be coming back again for you but I'm not
Going way out where the world will never find me
I made a claim that I would dance until we're bones with my bride
Told you I would never leave you all alone but I lied
I read your letter in the morning by the lake and I cried
They were tears of joy, my chains are finally broken
I made a vow to stand beside you 'til the day that I die
Told you I could never live without your love but I lied
Mmm, I lied
Mmm, I lied
Mmm, I lied
Mmm, I lied
Mmm, I lied
Mmm, I lied

Any lack of clarity is in the recipient's corrupted mind. — skyblack

I suppose that goes both ways though. You can't really be the objective judge of your own mind. The esteem you grant yourself is otherworldly if so.

Hope all this clarifies. — skyblack

Yes, you're much clearer but your value judgement using the strange words "corrupt" or "innocent" don't really mean anything because according to your language all minds are corrupt and innocent.
You haven't adequately fleshed out the difference between these two types of mind.

Can life really be a gift? — TiredThinker

At the risk of mixing metaphors, the glass of life is half full if we recognize it as a gift. Supposedly there are psychological benefits to exercising gratitude. There have been claims that the oceanic feeling that some are seeking as an antidote to unsatisfactoriness has neurological commonalities with "gratitude" and is drawn into dominance when the other brain regions (like the default mode network) are silenced.

A life can also be full of gift giving and gift receiving. Maybe the cup fills up the more you give and are grateful for.

Now about that gift you wanted to get me...

Sorry, you strike me as overly critical and what you are attempting to describe is unclear and seemingly in part contradictory.

Implicit knowledge cannot help leave a mark on the mind as it develops. There are dysfunctional minds, unbalanced minds, depressed minds et cetera but a corrupt mind sounds like a self-interested immoral mind (like a sociopath) that exploits knowledge for power at the expense of the well being of others. Corruption is a judgement made from an a particular point of view, relative to a set of values. It would help to ground your generalities through real life particulars, or imagined characters.

Or maybe on par with your abstraction, a corrupt mind is related to the maladaptive constraint of ego boundary, as is with depressed minds, where one cannot move forward constructively due to the emotively charged content of the past. One cannot step out of the bounds of the known and is thus limited by a fear mediated projection of the world (seeing through shit tinted spectacles).

You can ignore me if you like, if it is good to avoid depressed (perhaps corrupt) minds.