show me why I am wrong and we'll go from there. — TimeLine

As others have pointed out, you contradict yourself. For example:

Non-Kevins can go suck on a lolly for all I care. — TimeLine

If a non-Kevin is an individual who possesses the capacity of emotional intelligence and has the inclination to use this intelligence to consciously attempt regulating (generally stimulate or calm) the emotions of others in pursuit of a rational and perhaps mutually beneficial goal, regardless of the prevailing latitude in official rules, this individual would be behaving responsibly. Behaving responsibly in the pursuit of a rational goal may generally be characterized as mature. Given the context, it's unreasonable to imply that non-Kevins are immature.

One of your primary claims is that content is relevant and emotion is irrelevant. Yet with this statement you sacrifice content, suggesting that the conscious application of emotional intelligence is immature, which is clearly false, and favor an expression that is designed to produce an emotional response.

what would happen if we began to regulate emotions? What would that look like? — TimeLine

When it's too sedate sparks may be useful to rev things up, as Baden may be suggesting:

Maybe, though we do wish Kevin would check himself sometimes, we recognize he may bring out as much of the best as the worst in us and if he were absent in every way in all of us, there would be a little less spark in our engines, a little less juice in our marrow. — Baden

When things get out of hand more decorum may be appropriate to rev down.

If I'm not mistaken, the topic has focused on personal responsibility and not enforcement through moderation.

I have not at all been emotional or confrontational, but you took what I said personally and that is your flaw, your problem because the content of what I am saying is relevant. — TimeLine

The existence of this topic would seem to indicate that emotion is relevant. To suggest otherwise is rather literally Kevinish, in that the character in the film is severely sociopathic (emotionally deficient). Kevin could kill without without feeling and had no regard for the effects of his actions on others.

A true Kevin would be incapable of consciously attempting to regulate the emotions of others. For the non-Kevin's, it couldn't hurt to try.

What if I dream of something that doesn't exist in the waking world, like me having a child?

Or is such a thing impossible? How so? — Michael

I’m not exactly sure what his point might be but it may have something to do with the fact that we can’t imagine or dream of things that are beyond our experience. Our experiences of the physical world provide the basic contents or building blocks of our minds, without which there could be no minds.

You can dream of having a child because you possess the basic conceptual elements to form that dream, or simulate it in imagination. It would not be possible for you to dream of or imagine things that consist of conceptual elements that are beyond your knowledge or experience.

This limit in imagination indicates the mutually dependent nature of mind/matter, I believe.

Whether or not it's effective is relative. Effective at what and in what way? — Sapientia

As I understand it, rhetoric attempts to paint a persuasive picture that resonates with a particular audience by aligning values and/or purposes. Like logic, it can be an effective tool in argumentation: not just to persuade, but also to aid in the understanding and appreciation of an argument.

Pleasuring people for a living is supposedly the oldest profession. No wonder you get cranky at times.

Instead he [Martin Luther King] started with "I have a dream..." and painted a picture of the future that resonated with others on an emotional level. That's effective communication.
— Benkei

This is about content, not about emotion. ... How people respond on an emotional level is irrelevant. — TimeLine

It's funny that you would say something like this, being as skilled in the use of rhetoric as you are.

If a group of painters gathered around and painted the same tree, their various rendition would ordinarily be wildly divergent in feeling and style. This is analogous to human perception in that our predictive minds anticipate and color (with emotion, significantly) our perceptions before we’re consciously aware of them, so it’s more like we’re perceiving a stylized rendition than the real thing.

There's a distinction between the intentionality and the composition of perception (or a painting). — Michael

I don’t follow but am curious about what you mean here.

So you see no difference in meaning between dreaming of a tree, remembering a tree, visualizing a tree, hallucinating a tree, and perceiving a tree? — Marchesk

Studies indicate that all these instances are mental simulations that actually use the same neural pathways. The difference is that ‘imagined’ simulations are somehow suppressed in a way that the consciousness mind recognizes as imagined, or rather it is obvious due to the lack of fidelity.

Philosophy as the love of winning, rather than the love of wisdom?

The "Bee in my Bonnet" is not the way you as a fellow forum member treat others in a condescending attitude, it is when you are a moderator with that same condescending attitude towards forum members that is unbecoming of a leader. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Moderators facilitate discussion, they don’t lead discussion. It strikes me as more appropriate for a leader to express condescension, as it exerts dominance and in so doing may help to fulfill the goals of their leadership by keeping followers in line [I’m thinking of a drill sergeant barking at boot camp cadets], than for a moderator.

What are you following that a moderator leads?

Well, the most important source of meaning is God, and God is both inside and outside. — Agustino

No, not really. Your concept of God was given to you by your culture. If, for example, you were raised feral, you would have no such concept, or your concept of God might be furry, or otherwise something quite different.

Status is but a shadow of the real things that drive this world. There are four important things in the world. First, it is your God. — Agustino

If I might drag you out of the cave for a brief glimpse I’ll point out that God is pretty high status.

The only way this type of brain science refutes my claim of illumination is to say that all experiences of transcendence or spirituality (drug, stroke, or prayer induced) are straight up delusion. — MysticMonist

Curious. In Buddhism such transcendent experiences are generally regarded as awakenings from delusion.

I would say that meditation in its fullest sense though is about a lot more than just sitting on a cushion. It’s a comprehensive way of life and self-renunciation. — MysticMonist

Yes indeed, though I'm not sure what you mean by comprehensive unless you're talking about life in a monastery or something.

I don’t think hypnotism teaches this. — MysticMonist

Hypnosis is simply a method to accept suggestions.

In the modern world we are bombarded by suggestions on a less than conscious level, from media, other people, and internally. A lot of these suggestions are unhealthy, to put it simply. Hypnosis is a method for consciously making positive or healthy suggestions to our subconscious.

Many contemplative practices induce a 'trance state', which is the ideal state in which to deliver hypnotic suggestions, so the two practices overlap in this aspect, as I see it.

I’m actually not that knowledgeable about hypnosis, but I think the basics is relaxation plus focus, right? — MysticMonist

Plus suggestions of some sort, yes.

I've been experimenting with some self-hypnosis in my morning meditation.

Irrefutable proof that they had great drugs in the 60's.

But also I don’t have the control I do with meditation or hypnosis. I can exit a trance like state or vision whenever I want, i can’t become sober as easily. — MysticMonist

What sort of meditation and hypnosis techniques do you do?

Au contraire, one can have a stroke of insight.

It's depressing because you're opposing it. — Agustino

It's depressing because I'm not opposing it, and because others like yourself openly embrace it.

And now that we live in a capitalist economy, it is making money that has to bring us closer together. To be close, we need to make money together - we need to be actively engaged in the economy with each other. All of life today, apart from family life and downtime - is the economy. — Agustino

This is the most depressing thing I've read on this forum.

Bad grammar can have serious consequences. For instance:

Let’s eat, grandma!

vs

Let’s eat grandma!

Well, @Sir2u provided the subject matter, which I'm curious about, btw.

Three blind philosophers stumble upon an elephant. The philosophers consist of a materialist, an idealist, and a pragmatist. The materialist feels around and says, "This thing's alive and has a trunk like an elephant. It must be an elephant." The idealist feels around and says, "Yeah, it's definitely alive, and it has legs the size of tree trunks. It must be an elephant." The pragmatist says, "Anything that can make you guys agree on something... It must be a magic elephant."

The moderation on this site is:

• About right (for moderators)
• About right (for members)
• About right (for banned members)

If only it were that easy.

To date, 16% say too strict and 16% say not strict enough. If these numbers cancel each other out that means moderation is 100% just about right.

It doesn't have anything to do with a frustrated sexual drive, it has to do with a lack of respect for people in general and women in particular. — T Clark

For the Rhythm 0 piece, I think it has more to do with the ease in which we can regulate our empathy or make a shift in our perception from person to object. But come to think of it, isn't it a bit absurd to compare a rigorous scientific study (Milgram), to what basically amounts to an artistic stunt (Rhythm 0)? For all we know, Marina Abramović had people in the ready to escalate the situation if it didn't occur naturally. Artists are known to contrive publicity for profit. They're born tricksters.

Maybe the important question isn't why the people did the things they did, but rather why did the others let them do it? — T Clark

Actually some participants acted to protect her from the worst of it, I understand.

Morality is just mirage and, obviously, people aren't convinced by the weak arguments promoting it. Think of it. The very fact that all moral theories fail to convince anyone, unless s/he is already convinced, is evidence that no one has, as yet, discovered anything substantial in the field. — TheMadFool

Milgram and Rythem 0 may show that people vary in moral reasoning development.

According to Kohlberg's stages of moral development, it makes sense that low development would result in obedience in the Milgram study, and due to the lack of constraining authority, transgression in Rythem 0.

Briefly, my philosophizing isn't any better than my limericks.

Ah, must have been blinded by a guilty conscience.

Technically, I didn't break the rules.

you can comment on the jokes people tell — T Clark

I was merely commenting on Nihilistic Locomotives contribution. Nils Loc is from Spain, and judging from his name it's reasonable to assume he's got a thing for trains. Also, according to his story you're ultimately responsible for his glossectomy, which I can only imagine is a painful procedure. So not only is my commentary law abiding, it's true. Can you prove that Nils Loc still has a tongue? I didn't think so.

unless they had actually become self-suffience and independent of the economy -- a condition that is about 99% phantasy. — Bitter Crank

Amish.

Perhaps small relatively independent communities like this could develop with a modern mindset, using technology to help maintain an ethic of sustainability. Something like deep ecology maybe. Societal values might be based in aesthetics, reinforce by nonsectarian contemplative practice, communing with nature (deep ecology), and art, rather than the prevaling rationalization/religious values that seem to exist today.

There once was a nihilist from Spain
Who loved to travel by train
He told us one day
Going out of his way
That a man named T Clark was a pain

Clearly a 50% drop in global consumption would devastate economies. Maybe you’ve misapprehened what this person was saying?

I suppose it could workout if along with the simpler lifestyle choice everyone became relatively self sufficient, growing their own food, generating their own power, and so on. And that might only avoid economic collapse if people dropped off the grid very gradually.

It’s funny. Your sense of humor: .01

Sorry. I tried with the Napoleon joke.