Deep in the ocean, dead and cast away
Where innocence is burned, in flames
A million miles from home, I'm walking ahead
I'm frozen to the bones, I am

A soldier on my own, I don't know the way
I'm riding up the heights, of shame
I'm waiting for the call, the hand on the chest
I'm ready for the fight, and fate

The sound of iron shots is stuck in my head
The thunder of the drums, dictates
The rhythm of the falls, the number of deaths
The rising of the horns, ahead

From the dawn of time to the end of days
I will have to run, away
I want to feel the pain and the bitter taste
Of the blood on my lips, again

This deadly burst of snow is burning my hands
I'm frozen to the bones, I am
A million miles from home, I'm walking away
I can't remind your eyes, your face

I feel ya buddy.

Society is just changing a little to fast and culture is trying to play catch up.

My entire childhood I isolated myself by fear which I think probably has to do with a traumatic encounter in preschool. My development into an adult has been retarded. I'm afraid of my sexual preference. I work in a place where I don't want to work. I have no friends. I don't carry much value in these forums (i might as well be talking to myself). There has been little effort on my part to culture a discipline. I can't sleep and have stomach problems. Those whom I love will die when the next 10 to 20 years. My sister will go on to live her own life.

I think the best thing for me now is try to find good company and a discipline that will increase my market value. Changing my job would be an exercise in independence. Finding a friend that is embodied and is not flattened by the rules of language games and intractable puzzles (philosophy). The healthy often seek the healthy. Though a friend requires you to love as loving sustains the reciprocity of friendship. Friends require all the things that friends require.

How does one learn to love others? If one doesn't love oneself, how can one love others?

If one doesn't love or feel much, how can one possibly condition right action?

Submit yourself to a system of work and work that yields value. Work to work better. Try not to think so much about non-practical puzzles. Abandon the forum. Abstain from philosophy. Learn to play an instrument for someone rather than for yourself. Do good works for an audience. Dance (perform work) for an audience. Do something you can be proud of through the judgement of others.

We babes are all marionettes in the end, who dream of growing into ourselves through others.

This is a problem with unofficially published lyrics online. People write down what they hear and as a result I often look for more than two versions to compare. The two-facedness (or multivariablity) of word choice in song is interesting. We end up choosing the one's we like or hear.

There is a part in Health's album Death Magic: Drugs Exist (track) which reads:

"The dead will call us home."

vs. (what I saw posted as lyrics)

"The dirt will call us home."

Dead is likely intended based on theme but the substitution of dirt would make sense for someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife. The dead decay back into soil (dirt). It adds extra effect to the poem accidentally.

The archaic "nature" literally meant birth ("it natures" which is like our use of it nutures). That which births, nurtures. Take this as a psychological truth if not fact. Some mothers destroy their babies which might be arguably a type of nurture belonging to an indifferent nature, that of Darwininan selection which is not deterministic. Those that survive survive, those that die die.

Look at the word, nascent: "just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential."

Once you recognize the signs of future potential you put a child in an environment (group or mentor) that helps him/her to flourish. The recognition of a child's potential is the problematic part. Our monoculture can be somewhat preferential and brutual ( like a mother or father) selecting for some traits and being indifferent to others. For an adult it is like following their instincts and intuitions (which has become a nightmare of psychological tension for so many people). Signs of future potential can be hidden by maladaptive behavior but that in-itself is a sign that the organism needs a new type of nurturing environment.

I like Mircea Eliade's metamyth of the eternal return (though I'm not conveying his theory but borrowing bits of his structure).

Archaic time is circular. Periodic regularity of the world's performance is reflected in the behaviors of human kind.

To perform a ritual (to imitate the order of the universe) is to hold the universe together as it appears in a religious way.

This is to make philosophy religious (imbue its rituals with value by maintaining them). If we don't voluntarily perform the rituals of reason according to philosophic laws or sensibilities, ie. the arduous (or fun) task of mediating reason cooperatively by studying exemplars and the means of exemplars, they will die.

Reason by its (in)numerable modes coronates the philosopher and gives life (spirit) to the endeavor. The ability to reason endows the philosopher with value in the eyes of his peers. When you show that you can perform well you are coronated, but there are never ending levels to this (like martial art belts).

What does this have to do with God?

Nothing... as Black Belting Banno said, (the notion of) God is absurd.

Repeat the Bannonian mantra...

We must distill out the absurdity and live only the in the purity of a courteous surety.

How do you differentiate what is nurtured from the inside of what does the nurturing?

Nature nutures as much by the dominance of man as by the state of nature (whatever that is).

Man's dominance over nature is fundamentally subordinate to nature. But nature doesn't dominate anything, it selects for. Nature has selected for the adaption that dominates (makes a domain).

There is a sick brutality to nurturing (a form of dominance) which resembles the sick brutality of blind selection (shit happens in the absence of controlled selection).

Both man and nature select for one another rather than dominate one another.

Metaphysics is possibly destabilizing to one's sense of reality, possibly in similar way some drugs are.

The metaphysically adept are like deep sea cutters and welders. Their confidence and skill of logical consistency as well as their knowledge of prior arguments allow them to brave the waters of chaos to cut or fix something somewhere. What they are welding is like the structure of their own minds, which in effect restructures the world, but this is also true of everyone whether we are aware of it or not.

"He comprehended that the effort to mold the incoherent and vertiginous matter dreams are made of was the most arduous task a man could undertake, though he might penetrate all the enigmas of the upper and lower orders: much more arduous than weaving a rope of sand or coining the faceless wind." — Borges

~J.L. Borges, Circular Ruins

Metaphysics is like weaving a rope of sand or coining the faceless wind, toward what end?

In what substrate or form do they exist in? — Wallows

The exist in any substrate they do exist in as information, but they are something else.

Though maybe they don't properly "exist" until they appear by means of a particular cognitive processing. They are irreducible to theoretical script or physical processes because appearance is necessary for being recognized and recognition requires a whole train of relatively conditioned and logistically dynamic baggage.

Is appearance necessary for being recognized and is a particular recognition necessary for "existence"?

In what capacity does the unread and therefore unthought of fictional character exist? As potential and likely recognition of what appears, as scripts yet to appear and be interpreted by biological machinery.

Or fictional characters don't "exist" period.

Edit: deleted unnecessary Guru parody

I would say that the information does still exist, it just exists in an encrypted state. — DingoJones

The same information could have many encryption keys but the only encryption key that makes the information relevant (gives it a conditioned existence so to speak) is the one you have (ie. mind).

Suppose you have a book of gibberish that could be a possible language if you had an interpretive structure (a decryption key). If the key no longer exists to decode information (the language) then the information no longer exists. Information stands in relation to the decryption key in the same way as the world stands in relation to the mind.

They can exist without our minds. — DingoJones

But can they exist without any mind.

T-shirts are as categorically abstract as clothes, as trees are to matter when talking about abstracting properties from sense experience. We experience none as they truly are a part from mind, so their existence depends upon mind (any mind, including a mind that might transcend conventional mind, like a network of minds as mind). They aren't really anything besides what we perceive them to be, which includes the fundamentally or functionally pragmatic imposed categories of experience.

The in-itself outside of minds is not even an in-itself. There is not even nothing qua nothing.

The beauty of the message in the video is that those often thought as 'primitive' meditators adhering to mystic religious edicts are actually achieving quantifiable objectives. — BrianW

Personally I'm in an absurd position in my life. I owe my current job (income) to Yogananda Paramanhansa's dogma indirectly by charitable benefactors but don't believe in his metaphysics and have a cynical view about it akin to what Karl has expressed. Every now and then there is some admission that fundamentally appeals to me like "Yogi's aren't interested in phenomena" amidst vast tracks of dubious speculation about the "truth" underlying phenomenal world based on special privately experienced phenomena. Meditation is fine, and even good in light of evidence, but the dogma feels like a waste of time.

It makes it seem as if Yogananda's lies are a means to an end. Meditation is the greatest good in his eyes so it's ok to seduce folks into it by lying. If the structure for persuasion isn't there, no one will come. Or he is not intentionally lying at all from his point of view but is just a product of his lineage (an inherited metaphysics from his guru).

The instances of folks using sleight of hand to charm and beguile their adherents into believing dogma makes me very angry. Yogananda is very likely guilty of doing this. It conveys bad faith, that there is an ulterior motive going on.

Scientific American: Zen Gamma

The cost associated with Olympic level meditation is probably comparable to that of a disciplined scientific education across a life time. Probably both are possible, unless the brain state of ceaseless gamma waves interferes the ability to think as a scientist does. Apparently the opposite is true, gamma synchrony is associated with clear thinking and focus.

Someone invent a gamma wave feedback app for me. I'm willing to spend $5000 on it.

Why?

If I hang around magic monkeys maybe their magic will rub off on me, despite my incompetence.

De omnibus dubitandum est

Fish traveling upstream are going with the flow, just not the flow of water.

It is morally wrong to give gifts that no one wants. It represents extra carbon in the atmosphere no one wants.

We are the same person, Wallows. If you commit suicide you'll be killing me(yourself) without my(your) consent.

Well, suicide stigma seems to be worse in collectivist societies in my opinion. In collectivist societies, people often have a duty to their families, their community, and country. While in more individualistic societies, people have a duty only for their own personal well being and the well being of their children until they are 18. — TheHedoMinimalist

It isn't easy to generalize this along the lines of "collectivist versus individualistic" cultures and I'm a bit wary of your conclusion. Though I concede I may be guilty of this in my post. By some measure we are all subject to the pressures you describe from the collective because as human beings we all depend on one another. Ideological tribes which appeal to individualism do so to maintain a specific kind of collective life that is free from the extra constraints of a central state authority.

I personally think that the preference of the individual should usually outweigh the preference of the collective in regards to suicide or any other issue. — TheHedoMinimalist

Not when it comes to killing folks though? That is one tough kind of individual preference to favor but maybe it's no different than admitting that anyone is free to kill anyone else, so long as they're willing to deal with the collective's consequence.

The strange thing about the general prohibition against suicide is that seeking help from loved ones or even a clinic (ie. exposing the problem) also feels taboo to a lot of people. Maybe this has to do with American individualism or being a man. No one really wants to be bother others, either by the cry for help or by the extra suffering of a realized suicide.

To be suicidal and seek help is to admit to being weak and the stigma of being weak (dependent) is looked down on in our individualist culture.

Being ill generally disgusts other people. Being ill with no loved ones at the level of poverty might as well be a death sentence.

Europe had ballet, which provides examples of dancing for someone rather than with, and is therefore comparable to other non-european solitary dances for a theater setting.

The same old idiotic confusion from poster after poster — Terrapin Station

James K is actually just repeating what Berkeley argued, not that it is true. Folks are just trying to be charitable to Berkeley.

The ad hominem is probably warranted because some have used it against you in this thread but it'll only get worse if we carry on.

A good example is hue perception or colour discrimination. Yellow and red aren’t objectively physical qualitities that we had to evolve to see. Instead they are differences we manufacture to make the basically similar look violently different ... at a glance. — apokrisis

I still don't get why the difference of red and yellow in any particular circumstance wouldn't indicate a true physical difference (though there could be different ratios of receptors for those things between people). It seems "objective qualities" according to your view are just plain impossible so the term becomes confusing, further more if what is objective always requires a individuated view.

Self-generated experience without a sense object at all might make this more compelling, where by some previous experience the brain imposes a difference that overrides what would otherwise be sensed on average, or there is abnormal hallucination or illusion that ignores what is not typically ignored. Objectivity is just a kind of shared and adjudicated difference by repeated and extended sensing, a kind of collective subjectivity a step up from individual subjectivity.

How did Berkeley differentiate ideas that are just sensed (ie. the objects of perception) from those that are abstracted? It seems that the notion of "material" is a further step abstracted out from bare perception.

Isn't Hume's arguing against the self via Berkeley's skepticism of the material very similar. The material fits in the same vague category as the self, a higher up abstraction from a series of sense perceptions.

You know well enough you'd be perfectly healthy being a vegan for the rest of your life, Sir, so long as your diet was varied and you got enough protein. Essential amino acids can be harvested from plants and B 12 can be synthesized (i think).

You're probably right. But I can't decide whether I have free will, either.

You seem to not have read my post. No, I've never seen it. I'm venturing that nether have you — javra

On Thursdays I think I sense awareness but all other days of the week I doubt it so severely and whine to myself that the universe could be so cruel to contaminate my mind with such unwieldy ideas. Ideas are rather like diseases.

What is this awareness you speak of? Have you sensed it? Sounds like an idea to me.

Rocks are just ideas, man~ — MindForged

Speak true, brother.

To be is to be perceived.

We don’t see the physical world as such. — apokrisis

Why we don't see the physical world? Strange way to put it, as if it were possible to experience the physical world in an absolute way.

I can see we are not aware of the totality of what is going on around us by our evolved senses but what we sense is still grounded in the physical world.

Fundamentally any body of knowledge that represents a good account of how the world behaves is validated by the senses, otherwise something else is going on, like supernatural monkey business.

Sounds like you just need to go study your chemistry text, or troll a chemistry forum.

I don't think "substance" has a precise technical meaning in the context of chemistry. You could differentiate this mixture of salt and water from, say, just salt by itself and water by itself and say these are substances whereas mixtures are not -- thereby setting out how you mean to use the word "substance" in the conversation. — Moliere

It does have a precise meaning in the context of chemistry but it probably isn't of much use really.

Salt water is a mixture not a chemical substance (by strict definition). A solution is always a mixture.

Once you evaporate off the water and you have H20 and Na, they are separate chemical substances.

Since nothing is really pure though (unless achieved by chemistry) we dismiss negligible impurities to call something a substance.

Table salt has trace minerals in it and is hydrophilic, so while according to theory it is a chemical substance insofar it ought only contain NaCl, it is practically always a mixture of trace minerals, salt and water and atmospheric gas.

A chemical substance is either a homogenous aggregation of molecules or elements. A substance can only contain one type of molecule or element (discounting isotopes maybe), otherwise it is a mixture.

I hope this hasn't confused you more.

If I just had some extremely loyal and hard working pathologically altruistic volunteers to upkeep my property and take care of all my domestic affairs with no need for recompense, the world would be a better place.

Yes; but, what makes the mind of a depressive more prone to cognitive distortions? — Posty McPostface

Probably because feeling directs and is more crucial to thought than we think. Just a guess. Am relating this to disqualifying the positive or wallowing in the negative.

"I feel therefore it is. "

Moodie De Cartes

Why is that so? — Posty McPostface

There is a more severe tension (or dissonance) between expected, normal or good behavior and the behavior of someone suffering anxiety or depression and this is reflected in thought by rationalization.

How can you appreciate the positive more? Can you stop disqualifying the positive? — Posty McPostface

The first step would be to stop the negative thought or be aware that it is unnecessary, then affirm all the good things in one's life as a counterpoint I guess. There is a lot of relative good in my life but when it doesn't correspond to feeling good its hard to find it worthwhile (or to do it). Feeling bad corresponds with thinking negatively in my book.

So, mindfulness meditation is the key, here? — Posty McPostface

Just a practiced method for relief.

It seems like most folks are prone to these cognitive distortions in subtle ways. Such thoughts are likely exaggerated in those who have neurotic or depressive personalities.

It seems like "disqualifying the positive" would apply to me more often than it should. Being depressed all I tend to see is the negative. Life is like being stuck within the rhythms and flows of an impersonal and brutal bureaucratic slave-driving machine but I fail to have a perspective grounded in true hell (genocide, poverty, failed states and war).

Am reading J. Goldstein's explanation of the Sattipathana Sutta (foundation for mindfulness meditation). Being mindful of the mind's automaticity in regards to sensation is important to freeing ourselves from bad habits of cognitive distortions.