Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 19:25:00 GMT
"My self abandoned and devoid of shame, through the wide world your actions will proclaim; or though I'm imprisoned in this lonely den, obscured, and buried from the sight of men, my mournful voice the pitying rocks shall move..." - Ovid It is important to remember that attempts to silence those who have endured abuse have been resisted through art since well before Ovid's time (perhaps it is this resistance that gave birth to art and language in the first place.) In Intersubjective Morality and Conversation and Growth I touched on how "objective" and "subjective" morality have been used to undermine this resistance and appropriate its forms. Briefly, in the 1960's and '70's, the law allowed people some freedom to air their grievances against powerful monied interests in the media. With Ronald Reagan's government repealing the Fairness Doctrine, however, the wealthy have taken increasing control of all media. The latest news on this front is of this trend continuing, although the ACLU is showing the way for those who would resist this trend.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 5, 2018 2:11:40 GMT
Nice quotation of Ovid's Metamorphosis. Philomela always one of the most poignant and profound of ancient literature's allegories for the power of art to speak (or "sing") out against the injustices that try to silence it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 11:15:13 GMT
Nice quotation of Ovid's Metamorphosis. Philomela always one of the most poignant and profound of ancient literature's allegories for the power of art to speak (or "sing") out against the injustices that try to silence it. Thanks, Eva - I always like your own artistic references, so your opinion means a lot.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Apr 6, 2018 15:08:25 GMT
Spring has sprung, da grass is riz, I wonda where dem boidies is. Da little boid is on da wing, but dats absoid, the wing is on da little boid. -anonymous limerick
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2018 23:56:16 GMT
“The spoken word is one of the triumphs of man … and I intend to continue using it…” - Madeleine L’Engle, A Wrinkle in Time (1963) Inspired by a long-running argument between a member here who always insists on calling life a “burden” mothers “impose” on their children and another who constantly mocks him for his position, I thought I would try to resist my own bias – resist it at least long enough to answer the former claim. The claimant posits suffering as the primary attribute of life, concluding that the best state of affairs would be a lifeless universe. I claim that the fact that lives have needs does not call for either dismissing life as a mere realm of suffering or for protesting that the thriving of one organism must come at the cost of another’s suffering. The universe being a space of unlimited potential, rich in particles that attract or repel each other, leads to at least two options – merging and dissolution. The variety of systems we have discovered further attests to the many ways these options can manifest. AFAIK, the most complex sets of these two actions are performed by and among sentient organisms. Like other animals, sentients tend to bond with each other to enhance our ability to thrive. Unlike them, we are able to pass on the memory of suffering through language and art, allowing us to either create meaning from it or give up the attempt. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, those who have inflicted suffering often have subverted these forms of expression to obscure their meaning, turning blame either back to the victims or onto “outsiders.” Such stranglers’ tactics, refined over the centuries as people have refined their ability to communicate, can drive some to give up. Thus we get people consumed by depression or by fervor – fervor (religious, nationalistic, or both) either against these “outsiders” or against life itself.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 8, 2018 2:40:43 GMT
“The spoken word is one of the triumphs of man … and I intend to continue using it…” - Madeleine L’Engle, A Wrinkle in Time (1963) Inspired by a long-running argument between a member here who always insists on calling life a “burden” mothers “impose” on their children and another who constantly mocks him for his position, I thought I would try to resist my own bias – resist it at least long enough to answer the former claim. The claimant posits suffering as the primary attribute of life, concluding that the best state of affairs would be a lifeless universe. I claim that the fact that lives have needs does not call for either dismissing life as a mere realm of suffering or for protesting that the thriving of one organism must come at the cost of another’s suffering. The universe being a space of unlimited potential, rich in particles that attract or repel each other, leads to at least two options – merging and dissolution. The variety of systems we have discovered further attests to the many ways these options can manifest. AFAIK, the most complex sets of these two actions are performed by and among sentient organisms. Like other animals, sentients tend to bond with each other to enhance our ability to thrive. Unlike them, we are able to pass on the memory of suffering through language and art, allowing us to either create meaning from it or give up the attempt. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, those who have inflicted suffering often have subverted these forms of expression to obscure their meaning, turning blame either back to the victims or onto “outsiders.” Such stranglers’ tactics, refined over the centuries as people have refined their ability to communicate, can drive some to give up. Thus we get people consumed by depression or by fervor – fervor (religious, nationalistic, or both) either against these “outsiders” or against life itself. I have to admit to giving up on that thread as I found it both too distressing and too depressing. I also found it hard to believe that someone could feel so psychopathically depressed as to have such a view basically that life is not worth living. To think that someone could totally dismiss not only the wonders and beauty of the natural world as well as the higher thoughts and deeds of their fellow man's art music and literature, just made me feel hollow. It also made me thankful for my children and grandchildren, my memories of travelling and future plans to see those wonderful things for myself, and also for a lucky life (in between the normal bad times) and my wonderful home and garden filled with pets people and love.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 11:22:13 GMT
“The spoken word is one of the triumphs of man … and I intend to continue using it…” - Madeleine L’Engle, A Wrinkle in Time (1963) Inspired by a long-running argument between a member here who always insists on calling life a “burden” mothers “impose” on their children and another who constantly mocks him for his position, I thought I would try to resist my own bias – resist it at least long enough to answer the former claim. The claimant posits suffering as the primary attribute of life, concluding that the best state of affairs would be a lifeless universe. I claim that the fact that lives have needs does not call for either dismissing life as a mere realm of suffering or for protesting that the thriving of one organism must come at the cost of another’s suffering. The universe being a space of unlimited potential, rich in particles that attract or repel each other, leads to at least two options – merging and dissolution. The variety of systems we have discovered further attests to the many ways these options can manifest. AFAIK, the most complex sets of these two actions are performed by and among sentient organisms. Like other animals, sentients tend to bond with each other to enhance our ability to thrive. Unlike them, we are able to pass on the memory of suffering through language and art, allowing us to either create meaning from it or give up the attempt. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, those who have inflicted suffering often have subverted these forms of expression to obscure their meaning, turning blame either back to the victims or onto “outsiders.” Such stranglers’ tactics, refined over the centuries as people have refined their ability to communicate, can drive some to give up. Thus we get people consumed by depression or by fervor – fervor (religious, nationalistic, or both) either against these “outsiders” or against life itself. I have to admit to giving up on that thread as I found it both too distressing and too depressing. I also found it hard to believe that someone could feel so psychopathically depressed as to have such a view basically that life is not worth living. To think that someone could totally dismiss not only the wonders and beauty of the natural world as well as the higher thoughts and deeds of their fellow man's art music and literature, just made me feel hollow. It also made me thankful for my children and grandchildren, my memories of travelling and future plans to see those wonderful things for myself, and also for a lucky life (in between the normal bad times) and my wonderful home and garden filled with pets people and love. Thanks, Goz - you sound like a wonderful mother and grandmother!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 22:11:22 GMT
The aforementioned argument continues, with each poster accusing the other of basing their position on a covertly religious ideology. I would assert that any appeal to the ultimate nature of life is faith-based. Faith (in its most general sense,) according to developmental scholars Lynn Bridgers and John Snarey, is “reliance on a positive outcome, or unyielding belief in a providential future.” Citing E. H. Erikson and J. W. Fowler, the authors posit fidelity as a strength that emerges in adolescence -- faith that “one demonstrates to any chosen center of value and power. Bridgers and Snarey go on to list three faith-identity relationships Fowler recognizes -- polytheism, henotheism, and radical monotheism: I would propose that there is a fourth relationship, based on the acknowledgment, as I argue in Conversation and Growth, that there is no ultimate perfection that any sentient can attain. Looking for a term for this relationship has led me to the work of W. Hofkirchner, who uses the word “emergentism.” As opposed to radical monotheism with its implications of a perfect God to whom we must submit, Hofkirchner sees values, guidelines for actions, and morals “as emerging in a historical context.” Such a concept fits well into the process philosophy I discussed in the dharma and atman thread and elsewhere. To return to the argument on this board, the position of one of the participants would make him a good example of an adolescent who has created what Bridgers and Snarey call a “negative identity, when the adolescent consciously adopts roles, values and ideologies that are socially unacceptable, yet is determined to maintain them.” Such a description aptly describes one who discounts any evaluation by any observer other than himself to promote a lifeless, unconscious universe.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 10, 2018 23:09:55 GMT
The aforementioned argument continues, with each poster accusing the other of basing their position on a covertly religious ideology. I would assert that any appeal to the ultimate nature of life is faith-based. Faith (in its most general sense,) according to developmental scholars Lynn Bridgers and John Snarey, is “reliance on a positive outcome, or unyielding belief in a providential future.” Citing E. H. Erikson and J. W. Fowler, the authors posit fidelity as a strength that emerges in adolescence -- faith that “one demonstrates to any chosen center of value and power. Bridgers and Snarey go on to list three faith-identity relationships Fowler recognizes -- polytheism, henotheism, and radical monotheism: I would propose that there is a fourth relationship, based on the acknowledgment, as I argue in Conversation and Growth, that there is no ultimate perfection that any sentient can attain. Looking for a term for this relationship has led me to the work of W. Hofkirchner, who uses the word “emergentism.” As opposed to radical monotheism with its implications of a perfect God to whom we must submit, Hofkirchner sees values, guidelines for actions, and morals “as emerging in a historical context.” Such a concept fits well into the process philosophy I discussed in the dharma and atman thread] and elsewhere. To return to the argument on this board, the position of one of the participants would make him a good example of an adolescent who has created what Bridgers and Snarey call a “negative identity, when the adolescent consciously adopts roles, values and ideologies that are socially unacceptable, yet is determined to maintain them.” Such a description aptly describes one who discounts any evaluation by any observer other than himself to promote a lifeless, unconscious universeIn regards to discussing the content of the other thread, I too, find it more interesting to discuss how and why people are posting what they are, rather than the actual content of the posts which has now just become repetitious and circular. I have posted with Mic, one of the participants and an acclaimed anti-natalist for more than a decade, and you are correct. His stance on this issue has been unwavering, however it has concerned me that, encouraged by another poster, his stance become quite psychopathic, psychotic and lost the purity of philosophical theory, focussing rather more on truly unpleasant propositions for actually carrying out the means of imposing such a policy for humanity, than previously. IMHO to suggest forced sterilisation of women, forced suicide, mass murder on a worldwide scale to achieve the stated goal of a lifeless earth and universe, is aberrant and abhorrent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 12:10:12 GMT
In regards to discussing the content of the other thread, I too, find it more interesting to discuss how and why people are posting what they are, rather than the actual content of the posts which has now just become repetitious and circular. I have posted with Mic, one of the participants and an acclaimed anti-natalist for more than a decade, and you are correct. His stance on this issue has been unwavering, however it has concerned me that, encouraged by another poster, his stance become quite psychopathic, psychotic and lost the purity of philosophical theory, focussing rather more on truly unpleasant propositions for actually carrying out the means of imposing such a policy for humanity, than previously. IMHO to suggest forced sterilisation of women, forced suicide, mass murder on a worldwide scale to achieve the stated goal of a lifeless earth and universe, is aberrant and abhorrent. Goz: Yes, the methods that participant is proposing are even creepier than the goal. As to his opponent, I would like to answer your concerns in three ways: and, finally:
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 11, 2018 21:03:47 GMT
In regards to discussing the content of the other thread, I too, find it more interesting to discuss how and why people are posting what they are, rather than the actual content of the posts which has now just become repetitious and circular. I have posted with Mic, one of the participants and an acclaimed anti-natalist for more than a decade, and you are correct. His stance on this issue has been unwavering, however it has concerned me that, encouraged by another poster, his stance become quite psychopathic, psychotic and lost the purity of philosophical theory, focussing rather more on truly unpleasant propositions for actually carrying out the means of imposing such a policy for humanity, than previously. IMHO to suggest forced sterilisation of women, forced suicide, mass murder on a worldwide scale to achieve the stated goal of a lifeless earth and universe, is aberrant and abhorrent. Goz: Yes, the methods that participant is proposing are even creepier than the goal. As to his opponent, I would like to answer your concerns in three ways: and, finally: Well played Madam, They are both buffoons without the panache of Monty Python, just dreary little men self aggrandising on an internet message board.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 11, 2018 21:21:45 GMT
tpfkar Well played Madam, They are both buffoons without the panache of Monty Python, just dreary little men self aggrandising on an internet message board. Better than being a dude-looking old coward yapping about diatribes while she diatribes away just from a "safe" distance. And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 11, 2018 21:44:42 GMT
tpfkar Well played Madam, They are both buffoons without the panache of Monty Python, just dreary little men self aggrandising on an internet message board. Better than being a dude-looking old coward yapping about diatribes while she diatribes away just from a "safe" distance. And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.I am immensely flattered that you even remember seeing a photo that I posted on another Board, 6 years ago which showed me 'having a blast' dressed for a costume party. I think that shows a commendable level of obsession to the cause of dismissive misogyny, ageism and sexism. You must be proud. I used to enjoy posting with you in those days. These days not so much. Your endless word salad verbosity has become tiring with a few exceptions and your general demeanour towards others is unseemly and unkind. Apparently not many people still see your diatribes, so knock yourself out in a frenzy of self aggrandising wanking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 12:03:19 GMT
Goz: Yes, the methods that participant is proposing are even creepier than the goal. As to his opponent, I would like to answer your concerns in three ways: and, finally: Well played Madam, They are both buffoons without the panache of Monty Python, just dreary little men self aggrandising on an internet message board. Thanks, Goz. I probably wasn't very clear - This video might give a better idea of the exchanges under discussion:
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 12, 2018 22:39:09 GMT
Well played Madam, They are both buffoons without the panache of Monty Python, just dreary little men self aggrandising on an internet message board. Thanks, Goz. I probably wasn't very clear - This video might give a better idea of the exchanges under discussion: Great! How about we discuss them, then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 16:17:30 GMT
Thanks, Goz. I probably wasn't very clear - This video might give a better idea of the exchanges under discussion: Great! How about we discuss them, then? Well ... this is more fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 20:59:54 GMT
The anti-natalist position being the exact opposite of my own, I feel the need to oppose it, as its proponent’s fervor seems inexhaustible. He seems to by turns appeal to some “objective” ethics supposedly dictated by nature (“bad” is what evolution programs us to avoid, “good” merely the avoidance and amelioration of the bad) and some “subjectivist” belief that bad is what any given individual feels is bad. Thus, he seems to have taken the worst of both orientations to their dead end – in his view, life, especially sentient life, should be eliminated to remove any “suffering” from the universe. Earlier in the thread, I mentioned Erikson and his idea of “negative identity” as well as Hofkirchner and his idea of values in historical context. Putting the former in such context, I found some articles. The first is a research thesis that connects Erikson’s idea to borderline personality disorder, which it finds overwhelmingly correlates with insecure attachment styles. The next is a meta-analysis showing such attachment styles, or dispositions, result from mistreatment of very young children. While neoliberalism, with its alienating effects, continues to encroach on every aspect of our lives, I do see some progress in countering these effects, especially for emerging voices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 23:43:30 GMT
“The spoken word is one of the triumphs of man … and I intend to continue using it…” - Madeleine L’Engle, A Wrinkle in Time (1963) Inspired by a long-running argument between a member here who always insists on calling life a “burden” mothers “impose” on their children and another who constantly mocks him for his position, I thought I would try to resist my own bias – resist it at least long enough to answer the former claim. The claimant posits suffering as the primary attribute of life, concluding that the best state of affairs would be a lifeless universe. I claim that the fact that lives have needs does not call for either dismissing life as a mere realm of suffering or for protesting that the thriving of one organism must come at the cost of another’s suffering. The universe being a space of unlimited potential, rich in particles that attract or repel each other, leads to at least two options – merging and dissolution. The variety of systems we have discovered further attests to the many ways these options can manifest. AFAIK, the most complex sets of these two actions are performed by and among sentient organisms. Like other animals, sentients tend to bond with each other to enhance our ability to thrive. Unlike them, we are able to pass on the memory of suffering through language and art, allowing us to either create meaning from it or give up the attempt. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, those who have inflicted suffering often have subverted these forms of expression to obscure their meaning, turning blame either back to the victims or onto “outsiders.” Such stranglers’ tactics, refined over the centuries as people have refined their ability to communicate, can drive some to give up. Thus we get people consumed by depression or by fervor – fervor (religious, nationalistic, or both) either against these “outsiders” or against life itself. I have to admit to giving up on that thread as I found it both too distressing and too depressing. I also found it hard to believe that someone could feel so psychopathically depressed as to have such a view basically that life is not worth living. To think that someone could totally dismiss not only the wonders and beauty of the natural world as well as the higher thoughts and deeds of their fellow man's art music and literature, just made me feel hollow. It also made me thankful for my children and grandchildren, my memories of travelling and future plans to see those wonderful things for myself, and also for a lucky life (in between the normal bad times) and my wonderful home and garden filled with pets people and love. Goz, I'm probably just as sensitive to the beauty of those things as you are and love spending time outside in nature. No, I don't feel debilitatingly depressed. I felt far more depressed when I was trying to resist the truth of the basic mundanity and futility of life, and embracing the meaninglessness has actually lifted the depression from me. So I don't dismiss any of those things that you mention at all; they are all very important to people who are here. But if there were no life here, there would be no creatures missing out on those things, and in order to be deprived/'miss out' on any of that, you have to be alive in order to have a keen awareness of the bottomless pit of needs and yearnings that evolution has created you to be.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 18, 2018 23:50:51 GMT
The anti-natalist position being the exact opposite of my own, I feel the need to oppose it, as its proponent’s fervor seems inexhaustible. He seems to by turns appeal to some “objective” ethics supposedly dictated by nature (“bad” is what evolution programs us to avoid, “good” merely the avoidance and amelioration of the bad) and some “subjectivist” belief that bad is what any given individual feels is bad. Thus, he seems to have taken the worst of both orientations to their dead end – in his view, life, especially sentient life, should be eliminated to remove any “suffering” from the universe. Earlier in the thread, I mentioned Erikson and his idea of “negative identity” as well as Hofkirchner and his idea of values in historical context. Putting the former in such context, I found some articles. The first is a research thesis that connects Erikson’s idea to borderline personality disorder, which it finds overwhelmingly correlates with insecure attachment styles. The next is a meta-analysis showing such attachment styles, or dispositions, result from mistreatment of very young children. While neoliberalism, with its alienating effects, continues to encroach on every aspect of our lives, I do see some progress in countering these effects, especially for emerging voices. Forgive me if I am not getting the point of this thread, butt are you saying in this post that people who hold the anti-natalist viewpoint have various kinds of 'negative identity' and/or some kind of personality disorder? I agree that anti-natalism and its followers make all kinds of assumptions that are neither logical nor rational. It seems that because they have a skewed negative life view and experience ( perhaps because of mental health issues) they make generalisations that are not accurate for the majority of the population, and can in no way be seen as 'objective.' The very use of the term 'harm' and the meaning that they attach to it is problematic to me. It is as if they wish to have a perfect happy world or none at all, and they cannot accept the incredible variation of nature from imperfect to aberrant, in lives lived, from fortunate to unfortunate and EVERYTING in between on a sliding scale which covers all of us. BTW I will NOT debate Mic further on this as it is counterproductive and useless, probably due to his 'negative identity/personality disorder'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 23:58:20 GMT
The anti-natalist position being the exact opposite of my own, I feel the need to oppose it, as its proponent’s fervor seems inexhaustible. He seems to by turns appeal to some “objective” ethics supposedly dictated by nature (“bad” is what evolution programs us to avoid, “good” merely the avoidance and amelioration of the bad) and some “subjectivist” belief that bad is what any given individual feels is bad. Thus, he seems to have taken the worst of both orientations to their dead end – in his view, life, especially sentient life, should be eliminated to remove any “suffering” from the universe. Earlier in the thread, I mentioned Erikson and his idea of “negative identity” as well as Hofkirchner and his idea of values in historical context. Putting the former in such context, I found some articles. The first is a research thesis that connects Erikson’s idea to borderline personality disorder, which it finds overwhelmingly correlates with insecure attachment styles. The next is a meta-analysis showing such attachment styles, or dispositions, result from mistreatment of very young children. While neoliberalism, with its alienating effects, continues to encroach on every aspect of our lives, I do see some progress in countering these effects, especially for emerging voices. Interesting that you "feel the need to oppose it" by not directly addressing anyone actually propounding antinatalist views and instead hiding your opposition in a thread with a title that has nothing to do with antinatalism. I think that people should be allowed to determine how much suffering is worth the reward for themselves. I do not think that they should be freely able to drag along other people in their joy ride, when all the needs, desires and goals for doing so reside only in the mind of the people doing the imposing, and the costs will almost entirely be paid by the person upon whom the burden is being imposed. Evolution does not work towards creating 'satisfied' and 'happy' beings, it works towards creating organisms that are best adapted to surviving in the environment in which they reside. In the case of sentient organisms, suffering is the mechanism which drives evolutionary success. An organism whose baseline disposition is one of satisfaction is one that is not strongly motivated to compete with other organisms; nor even strongly motivated to meet its own biological needs for continued living.
|
|