Do you value your fire service?

Do you take part in your fire service? — Isaac

If your point is that voters should require qualification in order to vote, that’s beside the point. Though if that’s at all a viable idea it expresses a concern for democracy in that there’s the intent to improve it.

So your argument is that because some things require involvement, democracy does? — Isaac

Not at all. My argument is essentially that we generally don’t neglect what we value. Of course we may take things for granted, not consciously realizing how much we value something until neglect reaches a point of crises. If we don’t value something, like democracy or the fruitcake that you were gifted five years ago but remains in your pantry, then it’s hardly neglectful to let it rot.

I can't see why this is at all controversial. One need not participate in everything one values. That seems pretty straightforward. — Isaac

One need not participate in their childs upbringing, particularly if there are no laws restricking irresponsible neglect of that kind.

If a libertarian truely values freedom they will take responsibility themselves, otherwise they prove themselves to be paracites.

Would you accuse those who don't vote (assuming they could get away with not voting) as opposing democracy? — Yohan

I question how much democracy is valued by someone who argues against participation in democracy, simply. I assume that a pseudo-democracy may be valued by the ruling class and should probably not be valued by the ruled, but they may value it even if it doesn’t serve them well, due to ignorance.

On a related note, Trump appears to be intent on weakening the institutions that support American democracy, given the chance. Clearly he would love a pseudo-democracy and his ignorant base would love to hand it to him on a silver plate.

I’m grasping for an answer. How can someone who is not against democracy honestly argue against participation in democracy?

I do understand that this may be a difficult question for you so please, if it’s too much just ignore or blow past it once more.

No. — NOS4A2

You're not against democracy but you argue against participation in democracy. Are you sure that you're not a Russian troll? I know that I've asked you that before.

We were talking about not voting and you said it was an irresponsible political position. Why? — NOS4A2

Now that I put more thought into it, about three minutes, it occurs to me that I may consider it responsible if the non-voter is against democracy. Are you against democracy? If so, what would be a better option?

What does that even mean?

Your endless support of a politician, namely Trump, belies the sentiments expressed in the OP. Apparently, you enjoy the thought of having you neck under his boot golf shoe.

I’d just like to understand the disagreement, but I suppose it’s too much of a bother and that’s :ok:

What can I say, irresponsibility rubs me the wrong way.

Both Xtrix and I are trying to figure out your objection and he gets the okay sign and I get a show of contempt. That’s not fair. :sad:

After your endless displays of Trump boot-licking you would have us believe that you’re some sort of anarchist? I suppose it’s good that you recognize your lack of responsibility though, very Trumpian.

So formulating goals and making plans to achieve those goals -- A and B -- are important. How often do they lead to real action -- which is what I emphasize? I'd say it depends on how hard B is. Take losing weight. Plenty of diet plans one can follow, and most will give results -- *IF* one follows them. The fact that some people don't follow the plan doesn't necessarily invalidate the plan itself, right? — Xtrix

I think if a plan isn't followed or is ineffective it indicates that there's a problem with A and/or B. If a plan isn't followed it suggests that there may be an issue with motivation or with correctly evaluating desires. Perhaps the pleasure of eating outweighs the desire to weigh less and improve health. In any case, I would say that A is far more challenging than B. For one thing, we live with so many false assumptions. I have a recent personal example.

Getting older, I've been experiencing in the last few years what are generally considered age-related health issues. Chronic inflammation, with soreness, aches and pains after vigorous activity, arthritis in fingers, increasing eczema, pre-diabetes, and brainfog. This with a lifelong "healthy diet", plenty of exercise, and I've never been overweight. All that changed within a month of being on what is actually a healthy diet, or rather, a diet that our species is adapted to, a diet that is low in lectins.

I know that I'll never willingly go off this diet because the cost of doing so is too high. Also, because of the nature of the diet, I don't crave unhealthy foods and don't get hungry like I used to.

I like to think that if I knew what I know now that I would have eaten better in the past, but not having experienced the cost of a "healthy diet", I doubt that I would have changed.

So false assumptions and motivation play a significant role, I would say.

From my brief review of it this morning, the problem of criterion seems to center on an impossibility of validation.

Assumption: I'm too stupid to be an advanced chess player.

Result of assumption: I never develop to be an advanced chess player.

ABC Framework to the rescue!

Application of A: Hmm, maybe, just maybe, I'm not to dumb to be an advanced chess player. A stupid computer can be advanced, after all.

If B is sound then C validates A and advanced chess playing could not have been achieved without A.

C is part and parcel of the framework and I don't see how it could reasonably be considered external.

There is no plan, no need for a plan. Make an improvement, then see where you are, and then go again. — Srap Tasmaner

How is the plan of making an improvement, reviewing the results, and then adjusting based on the results, not a plan?

If I wanted to improve my chess game I have a pretty good idea of how to go about it and I could develop a plan to do so. An important part of that plan would include coaching from an advanced player. They could offer feedback about my performance that I may not be able to notice myself, my being an intermediate player.

They say that chess is largely about pattern recognition so one of the best ways to improve is to study master games. Simply playing chess in order to improve would actually be a bad or slow plan for improvement.

So there are good plans and bad plans, and also the question of if we want to improve or want to enough to invest the effort. Personally, I would like to improve my chess game but I'm not willing to invest the effort, I have other priorities.

I am not accusing you of being a capitalist. — unenlightened

He said the topic has nothing to do with capitalism, not that you were accusing him of being a capitalist.

Nevertheless, your psychology as described is highly individualist as distinct from social in emphasis... — unenlightened

Second to last paragraph of the OP:

After a lot of talk on the Forum about politics, climate change, capitalism, unions, collective action, etc., I find that so many of our problems are largely due to the fact that public pressure isn't there to change them. There's a multitude of reasons -- we're polarized, heavily propagandized, poorly educated, misinformed, warped by media, etc. But whatever the reason, in order to change this scenario we need to change ourselves and how we relate to others. — Xtrix

Hmm :chin: , sounds rather socially oriented to me.

... materiallist [sic]... — unenlightened

How so?

... pragmatic... — unenlightened

Good to see that you haven't missed that at least.

... entirely directed to an endless succession of wants and needs... — unenlightened

Clearly false so no need to bother trying to explain.

Bateson — unenlightened

Otrix's framework isn't the least bit opposed to a holistic look, as far as I can tell, and has nothing to do with technology.

It's funny, incidentally, that Bateson took a fancy to Buddhism in his later years, being that it's a belief system that only allows art that is supportive of its rigid structure and social hierarchy, and which is therefore lacking an avenue to self-correction. It's also prone to the abuses of an imbalance of power as any other social hierarchy, more so in that it's based on faith rather than reason.

So the question remains, is refusing to vote a viable political position? — NOS4A2

It’s an irresponsible political position, or in a word: libertarian.

I don’t understand your criticism. If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B.

Both Buddhism and stoicism have the same basic framework and are goal based. Buddhisms goal is the cessation of suffering and eudaimonia is the goal of stoicism.

I was hoping to one day see Jack’s artworks. Now it shall never be.

Remember when Trump promised to build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it?

Biden secures deal whereby Mexico agrees to provide $1.5 billion to help U.S. manage migrants on southern border

I mean, we can imagine consciousness without reason, so why not reasoning without consciousness? — Gregory

Don’t we already have this with computers? The device that I’m using to send this message can easily beat me in chess, for instance, and its not conscious.

“I believe consciousness is simply what it feels like to have a neocortex.”

― Jeff Hawkins

Subsequent to this you say:

The genuine God (if such exists) allows almost all humans who ever lived to be born into a society that has false gods. — Art48

And this suggests that one or more faith’s are not invented but genuine.

Nice :up:

Criminals need a fast getaway!

I’m just a guy taking things to their logical conclusion — Art48

Remind me what the conclusion is again, if you don't mind.

Baden sets the price of participation at being nice to fools. — Banno

No, that doesn’t appear to be the price. The price seems to be not being over-the-top hostile and bigoted. A very low bar, actually.

Religion is only a small, and rather silly when you think about it, part of the world.

Imagine a larger world
It may prove hard to do
Other things to kvetch about
With no religion, whoo-hoo!

Someone told me Steely Dan's 'Only a Fool would Say That' was written in response to John Lennon's Imagine.

Figures.

//even found a ref!// — Wayfarer

:lol: I don’t need to imagine a world without religion. Only fucking fools can’t imagine such a world though, I would say.

Actually there is a rather strict social hierarchy in Buddhism.

I still believe the idea provides a naturalistic basis for ethics. — Wayfarer

Indeed, what could be more natural than a social hierarchy and subjugation of the underclass.

I think the OP has nothing to do with any religious or spiritual doctrine about karma; I think it is rather a very philosophical question, but it creates some confusion because of the use of the word “karma”, that immediately sends us to religions and spiritualities. — Angelo Cannata

It I immediately sends us to “religions and spiritualities” because it is entirely religious in nature. The concepts of cause and effect aren’t religious, karma is entirely religious.

I suppose that folks are more apt to be twisted up by it the further down the caste system they’re born into. :confused:

I realized I had not applied what I learned to actually living so had nothing to share along those lines. — ArielAssante

Perhaps if you focus better you can post something actually lived and offering that kind of value.

What a shame. The forum is lesser now.

There’s also the possibility to have a mixture of both; a functional chair that also contains embellishments meant to please the eye. This is more of a gray area, and is probably determined by how it is marketed or used/displayed. — Pinprick

The way something is framed may influence how we see it of course, however, I think it’s possible to see anything aesthetically and we shouldn’t always rely on others, “thought leaders” or whatever, to direct our perception.

The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution
By Francis Fukuyama

Barbarian Days: A Surfing Life
By William Finnegan

Going into it I was very skeptical of a surfer autobiography but the Pulizer is well deserved.

The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in "Healthy" Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain
By Steven R. Gundry, MD

An important book if you care about your health, particularly if you have any autoimmune issues.

I didn’t say anything about craft, did I?

Many restaurants and homes have what I consider to be badly designed forks. I was in an Italian restaurant yesterday and ordered tagliatelle, but was shocked (shocked!) to see that my fork had short tines. Some might say that it was beautiful to look at, but if a tool is not fit for purpose, any beauty it might have is empty. Its eye-pleasing shape was superficial; for any tool, an important element in its beauty must be its functionality (and how it feels in the hand etc). — Jamal

I recall reading about a study which claims that people think, to some degree, that aesthetically pleasing tools work better, even though they may actually be inferior in function to ugly tools.

What it might say is that conceptual art is a mistaken or ill-conceived separation of the two, that it's the exemplar of a belief in the false equation, art = [craft, skill, and technique] + [vision, emotional investment, imagination]. And this belief could be the result of the inflated status of the artist as creator, which is an ecomonic and sociological phenomenon. — Jamal

I wouldn’t call this separation “ill-conceived”, I would simply tend to regard the result as commercial art, or art produced with the intent of making money, promoting some cause, or whatever. The ‘conceptual artist’ in this case is the capitalist or boss and in this way does hold a higher status position, and reaps the lion-share of profits. It’s not just artistic concepts though, like any business it’s having access to resources that the talent lacks.

Think for yourself.

And I got a word to spare. :grin: