I think "ambitious" is commonly defined as having a desire for fame, wealth, power, prestige, achievement, etc., in other words for things which make a person impressive, notable to others and influential over others. Ancient Stoicism expressly condemned that desire. — Ciceronianus

I understand the condemnation is due to their not being in our control and can all be lost rather easily. Virtue, on the other hand, is said to be something that we can control, and not as easily lost.

I was acknowledging Baker's answer to my response. I wasn't aware that respect meant that I had to be in total agreement too. — Tom Storm

I've been led to believe that it means to hold something in high regard and not merely a sign of acknowledgment. No matter, I just found it amusing, and thanks for that.

I certainly understand how people might view optimism in a complex world like ours as requiring a profound or robust framework to hold it up. — Tom Storm

The thing about profundity is that it tends to be short-lived.

Thanks for your response. I respect this. :up: — Tom Storm

You respect Baker’s prudently polarized view that a person is either a true optimist about life, with **profound** reasons to back up such optimism, or a bitter cynic or a sad fool diplomatically hiding behind a veil of optimism?

:lol: People are not so tidily categorized, in my experience. In any case, I’m curious about this profundity that reasonably supports optimism. Just how profound must it be?

Again with the lazy troll. Here's a link that may help your troll game:

https://www.mandatory.com/fun/172527-how-to-be-a-troll-the-beginners-guide

I went to the page and did a search for "Mahayana". That word is not used even once in the article, so how could it possibly support your stupid claim? There's no reason that whatever is preached in that article can't apply to Mahayana Buddhism because there's no fundamental difference in their beliefs about emptiness.

I'd love to see these modern-day stoics (and the old ones, too, actually) cope with some real problems, like poverty on the verge of homelessness or grave illness, or both.
— baker

I don’t see how your sadistic appetite is relevant to our little chat.
— praxis

*sigh*

When evaluating something that is proposed as a coping strategy, one has to test it to see how it performs under pressure. — baker

It's a rather odd take to view stoicism as a strategy for coping with grave suffering. Also odd to delight in the suffering of others, I will add. I see it as a practice to live well or achieve eudaimonia. Spirituality and a sense of self-worth, two aspects of human experience that you seem to emphasize, may be important aspects of that endevor but there's more to it.

Read the god damn thread and keep up with the discussion, instead of me having to repeat to you everything over and over and reply to everything to you specifically. — baker

You claim that the stoic feels like a powerful member of the divine and that this feeling is, in a roundabout way, the core of its efficacy. No doubt it's good to feel powerful, and it's good to feel connected, but there's much more to life than feeling powerful and connected. "After enlightenment the laundry" as the zen proverb succinctly puts it.

You wrote:

Normally, when Buddhists talk of emptiness, they mean it in the Mahayana sense ("nothing has any inherent existence or nature"). But that's not what it means in Theravada

This implies you may be claiming that emptiness in the Theravada sense means that things do have inherent existence or nature. That's stupid, of course, but you don't explain what you mean, which is also stupid.

I fight the good fight because all the tyranny of stupidity needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Thank you William Shatner for taking a risk and being the oldest fucker to ever be expelled into outer space, and for being such a dramatic actor.

I'd love to see these modern-day stoics (and the old ones, too, actually) cope with some real problems, like poverty on the verge of homelessness or grave illness, or both. — baker

I don’t see how your sadistic appetite is relevant to our little chat.

That's in roundabout how the Stoic feels about himself, except that his reference frame isn't the powerful tribe, but Nature, the Divine.
— baker

Why would that be necessary to practice stoicism?
— praxis

Because otherwise, you're just a poor sod in the gutter repeating some silly self-help soundbites to himself. — baker

If we just look at the aspect of CBT, there is a large body of evidence that indicates it can be much more beneficial than silly self-help sound bites, even for gutter dwellers.

You’re not explaining your views so I’m assuming all this self-empowerment silliness amounts to nothing more than trolling.

Shakespeare also incorporated a lot from Stoicism... — Shawn

Hence the often misquoted line "To be or not to be, I'm cool either way.."

Looks like it has the full video University lecture series. I signed up but didn’t pay the $50 for certification so I won’t be a bonafide CCV (climate change virtuoso).

A lot of books on climate change. Would be nice to know which was a good one that focuses on the science.

You’re one of the laziest trolls I’ve seen.

Abortion is awful! — PatriciaCollins

It is, but there are worse things, like backstreet abortions, or children being raised in impoverished conditions.

This really isn't rocket science. But yes, modern-day people tend to lack a sense of proper pride and dignity, so they can't relate to those who have them. — baker

Modern-day stoicism is all about well-being, and well-being is not opposed to a proper (not deficient or excessive) sense of pride and dignity. Indeed, this really isn't rocket science.

Drop political correctness for a moment and try to envision yourself as a powerful member of a powerful tribe. Can you do it? — baker

I’m not a powerful member of a powerful tribe, but I can fantasize that I am. Are you suggesting that ancient stoics were all a bunch of daydreamers?

That's in roundabout how the Stoic feels about himself, except that his reference frame isn't the powerful tribe, but Nature, the Divine. — baker

Why would that be necessary to practice stoicism?

You're claiming that Theravada Buddhists believe that things do have inherent existence or nature? If so, you're obviously very wrong.

You were saying something about the modern stoic being prone to quietism and I speculated that the pantheist may be more prone to quietism than the modern-day person because they may have an inclination to commune with God, rather than be a military general or whatever. Also, 180 pointed out several modern-day stoic military generals.

I don't see the point of making these claims if you're not going to try substantiating them. Are you just trolling?

:roll:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Theravada+buddhism+and+eptiness&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

They [modern-day stoics] have abandoned the metaphysical underpinnings of Stoicism, which, however, are of vital importance for contextualizing Stoic ethics, making them actionable, without too much difficulty and regret. — baker

This isn’t a very objectionable claim, being so oddly expressed, but it feels like I should object, so I will object, and demand that you at least try to substantiate it.

Do you think that it's true that the stoic attains inner calm or peace through apathy? — Shawn

Yesterday I was engaged in a sporting activity that didn’t go well and I remember feeling that I had a “heavy heart” when leaving it. That down in the dumps feeling quickly abated however when, da-ta-da-da!, STOICISM came to my emotional rescue. I had no control over the environment and conditions, or the other people involved, and it would only cause needless grief to fret over a past failure. So I focused on what I can control and reviewed my performance, and the choices I had made that day, in order to improve.

Xuit has nothing to do with luck. Go ahead and take another guess.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? — Pop

Why is it so hard for you to be honest?

Xuit is an ungrounded variable mental construct: Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be xuit. Xuit’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed xuit information. Xuit can be anything the xuitist thinks of, but this is limited by their consciousness. — “Alter-Pop”

What is Xuit? You don’t know because I haven’t defined it.

Completely in character, Pop completely ignores the fact.
— praxis

:roll: For the tenth time, and it is the first paragraph of the definition.

Proof of the definition:

​1.   Art is an ungrounded variable mental construct: Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be art. Art’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed art information. Art can be anything the artist thinks of, but this is limited by their consciousness.
— Pop — Pop

For the eleventh time, in order to define something you need to specify it’s unique attributes. Your definition only identifies information, human consciousness, and social constructs, nothing specific to art. It is not a definition of art and has no explanatory power in regards to art.

Completely in character, @Pop completely ignores the fact.

For what reasons would that person deem one object to be art and the other object not art ?
— RussellA

Ha, ha. This is something you would have to ask the person deeming one object art, and the other one not. But there would be reasons, or in other words something about their state of mind or thinking ( consciousness ) would result in such an action. Because consciousness is "integrated information", the choices people make are congruous with their general state of mind, so when they make the choice that something is art this is an aspect of their general mind activity, and in an ideal setting we should be able to infer a lot of their mind activity from the clues provided in what they choose as their art. — Pop

A few basic reasons are that either the object wasn’t framed as art, or that the observer didn’t recognize it as art, or that the observer recognizes that it’s framed as art but, evaluated by their own criteria, judges it to not be art.

Significant to your claims, the recognition or evaluation of art has nothing to do with your definition of art that “Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.” In order to define something you need to specify it’s unique attributes. Your definition only identifies information and human consciousness, nothing specific to art. It is not a definition of art and has no explanatory power in regards to art.

This would not have been possible in Jane Austin's England. If you hung a piece of rubbish on your wall - you would be carted off to the nut house. You could only hang ideal landscapes, or if you could afford it portraits.

…

My point is that consciousness evolves both collectively and individually and art reflects this. — Pop

It’s not news that culture and art develop. The issue highlighted in the example is that hanging a piece of rubbish on the wall could be seen as a reflection of the mind that put it there, or information about someone’s consciousness, at any point in history or in any culture. It may or may not be seen as art, therefore your definition doesn’t define art. Don’t you see?

If you wanted to explain it to Georgian era gentry how the rubbish is art you would need to include the concept of aesthetic experience in order to reference and try to shift their aesthetic appreciation.

Interesting statistics. One of the most striking differences is the percentage of stories framed around leadership/character vs policy/agenda, with 74% about leadership/character in the Trump nightmare compared to only 35% during the same period of the Biden administration. How is that at all unexpected or surprising though? If Biden made himself the star of a reality tv show, made it all about himself as much as inhumanly possible, the media would certainly accommodate him.

the fevered media treatment unlike the world has ever seen, peering into every facet of his life. — NOS4A2

You’re starting to talk like Trump, at least when you’re too rushed to consult a dictionary. And the fevered media treatment, seriously? Biden can’t use the wrong fork at dinner without it being dragged through unfriendly media outlets and them calling for impeachment. I exaggerate of course.

This emergent understanding of information was critical to this definition of art. Wit could not find something singular that all art is, and in his time information was something one exchanged with the neighbors over the back fence. We now know definitively that all art is information - since information is fundamental. The only question that then remains for art is - information about what? And the obvious answer is consciousness. The term consciousness captures the mind activity that leads to the creation of art, and how the art is limited only by the consciousness that creates it - which when we look at art across cultures, and through the ages, seems so obvious. To me at least - :lol: - but it has the consequence of ruffling feathers, since we all know exactly what art is! - right? — Pop

No. For example, an artist pins a banana to a wall and says that it’s art. Many people agree that it’s art, but many others disagree that it’s art. How does your definition help in this situation?

If something has “nothing whatsoever” to do with qualitative distinctiveness then why should it offend?

I'll go through it step by step.

talk about complex transmissions of information may be true, as the actuarial tables are true — Constance

You compare Pop's claim that "Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness" with actuarial tables.

life and death qualitatively has nothing whatsoever to do with actuarial tables — Constance

If the experience of life and death has nothing to do with actuarial tables, then the experience of art has nothing to do with Pop's claim.

This is why your announcement that art in information offends others here. — Constance

An announcement that is compared to actuarial tables. If an actuarial table has nothing to do with the experience of life and death then it would not be offensive to that experience.

They think art is profound, religious, or deeply meaningful. — Constance

These are experiential qualities, and whoever 'they' are, experience art as profound, religious, or deeply meaningful. This has "nothing whatsoever" to do with Pop's claim so it's strange that you say it's offensive.

My trouble, as I read through this, is that it is entirely a quantifiable analysis. Aesthetics is not quantifiable, or it is (in some hedonic scheme), but this is not the point; the point is, quantifying is altogether absent of the quality, and aesthetics is all about quality. All talk about complex transmissions of information may be true, as the actuarial tables are true for people selling insurance, and no one can say such tables are false, or wrong. They're not. But then, life and death qualitatively has nothing whatsoever to do with actuarial tables. This is why your announcement that art in information offends others here. They think art is profound, religious, or deeply meaningful. Others look to the meanings in play, how truth connects to images, how images are iconographic reflections of the self; and so on. — Constance

Strange take, I don’t know anyone who is offended by an actuarial table, or anyone who’s not emotionally affected by artistic quality.

I will not tolerate histrionic whinging and whining, or backhanded derision without reciprocating. — Pop

Speaking of melodrama.

Your mate did not understand what a scientific definition of art even means. It means that the definition is relevant for all art ever made, regardless of culture, from the furthest past, to the most distant future. — Pop

That’s super cool and all, but what use is it? You claim that it will put art back into the hands of intellectuals and artists, and put a thorn in the side of aestheticism, but can’t explain how. I hope you realize how clownish this makes you look.

Long ago I read a book about centenarians and if I recall correctly, the theme that I derived from the personal stories basically corresponded to Newton’s first law of motion, that an object in motion tends to stay in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest. The centenarians who had active (mental & physical) lives were vital and those that had sedentary lives were like vegetables.

Claiming that art is an expression of consciousness in no way contradicts aestheticism.
— praxis

I don't wish to say that art is not aesthetic, plainly it is. However all experience is aesthetic, so to focus on aesthetics as the defining feature that separates art from everything else is an error. — Pop

Aestheticism emphasizes aesthetic value and effects. It doesn’t deny other positions so this can’t be said to be a definition of art. What are you thinking?!

So art is information about the artist's consciousness (hopefully you understand consciousness a little more broadly by now). — Pop

I might understand your ideas about it if you were to ever expand on them. When asked, you mention various various philosophies and belief systems, some of which appear to contradict things you’ve said, but don’t explain your ideas in any depth.

Yes art is aesthetic … You can not, and you have not put forward any arguments or propositions that define art in terms of aesthetics — Pop

Apparently I don’t need to.

… most pertinent element of all art - that it is information about consciousness. This makes all art meaningful, as an expression of consciousness, regardless of anybody's personal preferences or motives, or understanding. — Pop

Every expression is meaningful regardless of art. I can demonstrate this fact. Try to communicate something to me that is meaningless.

You have failed to show how claiming that art is an expression of consciousness contradicts (“is a thorn in the side of”) aestheticism.

Just the excuse I needed to get a 3D printer. Goodbye fiestaware.

Maybe it would help if you thought like a Trump supporter. I’m sure they could come up with all kinds of examples where liberals actually punish the uneducated.

I too remember the post where we said we were discussing actual policy. — StreetlightX

conservatives like punishing women (cf. Texas) — StreetlightX

You mentioned this actual policy and ask us to compare it with something but neglect to give a comparison.

If you’re referring to Tim Wood’s comments about preventing Trump supporters from voting, that’s punishing Trump supporters, and it’s not actual policy.