As I see it resistance is the key here.
Resistance becomes a metaphor for life against death or the universe in flux against order and perfection.
Life/Death - Evil/Good - Known/Unknown - Strength/Weakness - Perfection/Imperfection - Order/Disorder.........................

We become an existence in perpetual confrontation with a temporal flow (change); ephemeral order (awareness, knowledge, power) in the midst of growing chaos (incomprehensibility, disorder, unknown, weakness).

Culture and experience become known pathways made familiar through repetition.

We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will - even if we derive our greatest sense of achievement by taking the “…path not taken…” .

We pretend to be above or beyond instinct or intuition and we disapprove of reason and logic even when we claim to be rational, free, beings, above categories and generalizations.
But how can we transcend patterns when we cannot resist them?
How do we resist patterns when we cannot even recognize, admit and control them?

It’s easy to say that we are above gender generalizations, for example, when we cannot even perceive sexual objectives in our behaviour.

Things become easy because they have been treaded upon.
The familiar and commonplace become easy and natural whereas the difficult and the unnatural seems hard.
How easy is it to step on another’s path?
How easy is it to cut through a jungle another has already cleared a path through?

Is it not the same for mental jungles?
How easy is it to think in accordance to previous thoughts?
Is this not the root of all morality and civilization and culture?
Do we not follow, blindly, behind another and judge our progress in relation to his?
Is this not a meme?

Even music becomes comprehensible as a repetitive pattern which echoes primordial biological rhythms and offers us that sense of familiar ease.
We recognize, in music, a familiar beat, a repetitive rhythm made all the more attractive due to its repetition.
We feel its ease and we connect to our being.

Thoughts?

Dukkha

--- Ron

I'll give "thoughts" later I promise, it's just very difficult reading through these words---I only wanted to say Satyr, that i'm sorry for saying I don't like you, as, it is not true. I think you're actually pretty cool: besides the point, as I say I didn't mean it, and... keep it up?

---Brent

good thoughts!

Early philosophers continue to amaze me. WOW! Life based on resistance... such a beautiful concept!

I have witnessed myself acting very strangely when tempted with sex, or another similar pleasure...practically beyond my own will.

The fact that we all congregate with one another according to our familiarities, goes with this concept as well. We are all apart of a pattern, and no one even realizes it. Cliche concepts rule over all of us, just because the path is shared by others, with least resistance. God forbid we be alone! (Pun not intended)

The same goes for our history and future. As endless generations pass, history continuously repeats itself under the influence of human control. Whether from ignorance, or from an attempt to "finish one's work" or something.

Music, I think, doesnt really follow this pattern though. Music is divided in mathmatical measurements of time, yes... however, music in itself is completely meaningless if you look at the relevancy of it to our survival. (I guess this goes back to creation..) Art, it seems, shouldn't exist. Why do we appreciate art? Is it because we can relate our own emotions and struggles to the content? Or is it just a passtime that developed out of civilized living (not needing to hunt for food all the time, etc.).

which brings me to another concept: boredom!
when we are treated with a concept over and over, we begin to become almost too familiar with it. Such as, for instance, trees. They are incredibly complex! amazing how this great strong lifeform can reproduce and grow over such a long period of time, enduring great struggles. yet, we drive by them in our shiny cars without paying them any heed.

practically beyond my own will.
had to comment here, seeing:
I believe what people to believe "responsibility", also, "will", as when for example talking about "beyond my will"---they see the will as stronger than it is. My name, existabrent, as i've said numerous times... (??)---is very serious about that.

Anyway, I guess my point is that when you are saying you are acting without or beyond your will, there is actually a huge nothingness there, which...
isn't good :D rather, it is the opposite:

It is simple, the fact is that "your own will" is actually nothing. It is all a bunch of what satyr continues to talk about :)
hell i guess :o

you are definitely right, but i should have used "reasoning" instead of will.

as in, my best reasoning said I should not get involved with this girl who is pushing herself onto me, but my brain seems to outweigh the pleasure with the consequences of allowing this girl to think I am attracted to her in more than a physical way. 1 hour of pleasure (varies ;) ), this girl experiencing emotional pain.

JUST AN EXAMPLE! :)

sigh..this'll continue to snowball into a more complicated discussion, i can see it now.

hmm interesting satyr. I have a few comments.

"We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will"
This is a crucial part. We do not choose the path that least resists our will because then we would be very proficient. It is the opposite. We try a quick way out("least") by chasing a dream, forcing etc. but it doesn't work like we would hope it to work. Therefore it is the most resistent. We feel we are achieving something, we are progressing and meeting a goal but this very idea is false whitch becomes obvious if you would just "wake up" and see what you are actually doing. So the conclusion is we choose the path that is in our view the fastest whereas our view is a thing of the past. How can you know the fastest way in the mids of the unknown if you are forever in the past, in the known? How can you find order in chaos if you are looking for an order that is by itself of the past? etc etc etc.
Example: you have tension and you try to get rid of it by tensing.
you are relaxing and you try to relax more by force whitch is tension.

But I agree satyr. It is all about the least resistance/easiest/that which works/conservation of energy bla bla.

As I see it resistance is the key here.
Resistance becomes a metaphor for life ...<roughly hewn>
We recognize, in music, a familiar beat, a repetitive rhythm made all the more attractive due to its repetition.
We feel its ease and we connect to our being.

Thoughts?


We're running on rails, sit back and enjoy the ride. Is that what you mean?

sigh..this'll continue to snowball into a more complicated discussion, i can see it now.
likely was my fault to begin with.

this is madness pure and simple although locomotive has given an incredible post IMO.
Anyhow that's all for now, and satyr,
"be a buddhist",
it's as simple as that, your choice.
-Brent

***We interrupt this program for a scheduled existabrent thunder show***

As I see it resistance is the key here.
Resistance?

Resistance becomes a metaphor for life against death or the universe in flux against order and perfection.
Of course though it doesn't necessarially have to be viewed from that POV. When every word you type is taken to the extreme, you're kinda opposed to resistance to it.. just tellin ya, as ya seemed to be interested.

Life/Death - Evil/Good - Known/Unknown - Strength/Weakness - Perfection/Imperfection - Order/Disorder.........................
Now, don't tell me you have some disorder or something if ya do Go to a docter, just be happy's all. I don't understand quite the line of questioning as I sometimes call (LOT Line of thought).

We become an existence in perpetual confrontation with a temporal flow (change); ephemeral order (awareness, knowledge, power) in the midst of growing chaos (incomprehensibility, disorder, unknown, weakness).
That is better!
But.
Of course, this isn't necessarially the correct POV. As I like to say a lot, "everything's been figured out, so, what's the use?" Everything you say has been done, is already known---that's why I get so pissed off at women! They're talking about creating a woman world and stupid such shit, while the rainforrests still aren't saved! What the fuck! Think positive!

Of course though satyr, what you're saying, could be true. It just takes the thought. That thought,
requires some thought :D lol

Culture and experience become known pathways made familiar through repetition.
It's sort of funny, speaking of "culture".
I'm 20 btw but i've not had an apt social encounter since I first started to downfall. Besides the point,
I don't see your point. If you wish to reply that's fine I'm doing this out of my own "will".

We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will - even if we derive our greatest sense of achievement by taking the “…path not taken…” .
I would have to sort of agree; though it doesn't necessarially have to occur from such; many do not fall into such a path, although, if i follow right, ...
damn i forgot.

We pretend to be above or beyond instinct or intuition and we disapprove of reason and logic even when we claim to be rational, free, beings, above categories and generalizations.
But how can we transcend patterns when we cannot resist them?
How do we resist patterns when we cannot even recognize, admit and control them?
There's your question that you have, basically, asked me. I would go back. But I refuse to.
Patterns can be resisted.
We resist patterns by being ourselfs. Have you noticed some people. They just seem to be above and beyond this, I think perception is key, or somethin like that. Anyways, I see your point. Your point is simply "how do I resist this, when I cannot resist this."
Existabrent---you fucking retard. You have no clue.

You're probably right satyr, but what I do have a clue about, is that... there are different people---different perceptions. Restiance is always possible. It is highly possible to escape or leave. Otherwise I would myself call this normal.


It’s easy to say that we are above gender generalizations, for example, when we cannot even perceive sexual objectives in our behaviour.
It's possible we have some things in common. Though, you type much better than I do :p
It is definate that some sexualize their experiences. It is positive that this has all already been figured out.
But, those things exist if I follow you.
These things are all too real you are in control of your own life. I guess.

Things become easy because they have been treaded upon.
The familiar and commonplace become easy and natural whereas the difficult and the unnatural seems hard.
How easy is it to step on another’s path?
How easy is it to cut through a jungle another has already cleared a path through?
Okay, I see your point now. Not bad. As to your first two sentences, ...
hey, if you wanna ask somethin ask.
Third sentence: all too easy.
4th: too easy it is bothersome.

Is it not the same for mental jungles?
i'm a poke fun critic.
How easy is it to think in accordance to previous thoughts?
My god. I could type out endless shit here. I am doing this for you, as, ... whatever.
Is this not the root of all morality and civilization and culture?
Very close, I'm not sure you yourself are on the right track but asuredly very close. As I myself am not either.
Do we not follow, blindly, behind another and judge our progress in relation to his?
Is this not a meme?
Not necessarially. I think you're funny sometimes.

Even music becomes comprehensible as a repetitive pattern which echoes primordial biological rhythms and offers us that sense of familiar ease.
We recognize, in music, a familiar beat, a repetitive rhythm made all the more attractive due to its repetition.
We feel its ease and we connect to our being.
ya know, philosophy is madness. you're gonna be thinkin about how music "really" sounds, next.

Thoughts?
why not...
Shit, don't take shit so seriously, don't path of least resistance it, try to think in terms of it's your life and the internet is harmful. Or else, you will simply make yourself worse, and worse and worse. It's as if you're on the c omputer doing what i was doing in my notebooks. You should quit being fed up.

Path of least resistance is path of least knowledge.
kidding satyr.

As I see it resistance is the key here.
Resistance becomes a metaphor for life against death or the universe in flux against order and perfection.
Life/Death - Evil/Good - Known/Unknown - Strength/Weakness - Perfection/Imperfection - Order/Disorder.........................

We become an existence in perpetual confrontation with a temporal flow (change); ephemeral order (awareness, knowledge, power) in the midst of growing chaos (incomprehensibility, disorder, unknown, weakness).

Culture and experience become known pathways made familiar through repetition.

We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will - even if we derive our greatest sense of achievement by taking the “…path not taken…” .

We pretend to be above or beyond instinct or intuition and we disapprove of reason and logic even when we claim to be rational, free, beings, above categories and generalizations.
But how can we transcend patterns when we cannot resist them?
How do we resist patterns when we cannot even recognize, admit and control them?

It’s easy to say that we are above gender generalizations, for example, when we cannot even perceive sexual objectives in our behaviour.

Things become easy because they have been treaded upon.
The familiar and commonplace become easy and natural whereas the difficult and the unnatural seems hard.
How easy is it to step on another’s path?
How easy is it to cut through a jungle another has already cleared a path through?

Is it not the same for mental jungles?
How easy is it to think in accordance to previous thoughts?
Is this not the root of all morality and civilization and culture?
Do we not follow, blindly, behind another and judge our progress in relation to his?
Is this not a meme?

Even music becomes comprehensible as a repetitive pattern which echoes primordial biological rhythms and offers us that sense of familiar ease.
We recognize, in music, a familiar beat, a repetitive rhythm made all the more attractive due to its repetition.
We feel its ease and we connect to our being.

Thoughts?

The way I see it, you are talking about change.

i.e. who moved my cheese?

So people fear change, they find themselves unable to deal with change easily, they use old familiar patterns of response when confronted with unknown situtaions, they are unwilling to accept new ways of doing old things, they live in denial when confronted by change, i.e. they resist change.

So why do you think change is so uncomfortable a notion? After all the entire human civilization has been defined by our ability to change...

As I see it resistance is the key here.
Resistance becomes a metaphor for life against death or the universe in flux against order and perfection.
Life/Death - Evil/Good - Known/Unknown - Strength/Weakness - Perfection/Imperfection - Order/Disorder.........................

We become an existence in perpetual confrontation with a temporal flow (change); ephemeral order (awareness, knowledge, power) in the midst of growing chaos (incomprehensibility, disorder, unknown, weakness).

Culture and experience become known pathways made familiar through repetition.

We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will - even if we derive our greatest sense of achievement by taking the “…path not taken…” .

We pretend to be above or beyond instinct or intuition and we disapprove of reason and logic even when we claim to be rational, free, beings, above categories and generalizations.
But how can we transcend patterns when we cannot resist them?
How do we resist patterns when we cannot even recognize, admit and control them?

It’s easy to say that we are above gender generalizations, for example, when we cannot even perceive sexual objectives in our behaviour.

Things become easy because they have been treaded upon.
The familiar and commonplace become easy and natural whereas the difficult and the unnatural seems hard.
How easy is it to step on another’s path?
How easy is it to cut through a jungle another has already cleared a path through?

Is it not the same for mental jungles?
How easy is it to think in accordance to previous thoughts?
Is this not the root of all morality and civilization and culture?
Do we not follow, blindly, behind another and judge our progress in relation to his?
Is this not a meme?

Even music becomes comprehensible as a repetitive pattern which echoes primordial biological rhythms and offers us that sense of familiar ease.
We recognize, in music, a familiar beat, a repetitive rhythm made all the more attractive due to its repetition.
We feel its ease and we connect to our being.

Thoughts?It is a principle. There are more principles, and they don't work alone. But finding the whole reason for a principle is seeing it working throughout it all. Each principle has this nature (that's why I think it's so fun discovering principles). However, as I said, it wouldn't work if they were alone, so I guess we just have to face that it works because all principles work throughout it all.


By the way, it's very very amazing, profound even, that when it was created, first a principle, wow it works, everything works through this principle. Then oh, another one, ahhh it works through this too, amazing. Then comes hundred principles more which intertwine them all and everything works again! Profound.

Dukkha

--- Ron

Yes. But is there a solution to Dukkha?

I would suggest methods to loosen the stronghold of ego that tethers and anchors oneself.

Agreed Nicholas. I believe sam said it well also.

Cyperium
Profound.
Is this carcasm?

Were you refering to me?
yes, you were right indeed, my thoughts, MY, thoughts, spanned from one analysis, and then were infurated as it took my thinking I was stupid.

Either way, it don't have to keep going.
What do ya say?
PM me please, or I will you.

As I see it resistance is the key here.
Resistance becomes a metaphor for life against death or the universe in flux against order and perfection.
Life/Death - Evil/Good - Known/Unknown - Strength/Weakness - Perfection/Imperfection - Order/Disorder.........................

We become an existence in perpetual confrontation with a temporal flow (change); ephemeral order (awareness, knowledge, power) in the midst of growing chaos (incomprehensibility, disorder, unknown, weakness).

Culture and experience become known pathways made familiar through repetition.

We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will - even if we derive our greatest sense of achievement by taking the “…path not taken…” .

We pretend to be above or beyond instinct or intuition and we disapprove of reason and logic even when we claim to be rational, free, beings, above categories and generalizations.

Correct. Repetition suffocates, suppresses, shrouds, perpetrates and selects our own wills to power. But it is the necessary, though insufficient "meta-state" of existence that creates structure and coherence in our lives. The cynicism we know comes from repetition. I believe it was Hume who made the distinction between the validities of causality and association, logical thought and empirical reality. Where repetition presents the ever-illusive affront science and philosophy can only hope to elucidate between causality and association, but can never. Y may follow X, but it is not necessarily that X is the cause of Y. Not to mention, there is self-referrence to make the Mount Everest of wonder impossible, "this statement is a lie". Such existences can be argued as neither true nor false. But hey, we can always skip the crap and smoke weed all day, thus releiving ourselves of the plague that pupose and responsibility garantees in intervals. Or find something that provides an equally satisfactory alternative. I have always been privy to new things.

But how can we transcend patterns when we cannot resist them?
How do we resist patterns when we cannot even recognize, admit and control them?

You have to be a god to transcend patterns. Or you can welcome new ones and experience as much satifaction as any god might feel at the birth of existence.

It’s easy to say that we are above gender generalizations, for example, when we cannot even perceive sexual objectives in our behaviour.

I think we can perceive sexual objectives. There have been few anomalies of people in history who not only celebrated anstinence, but were unabashed by mere social and physiological "needs".

Things become easy because they have been treaded upon.
The familiar and commonplace become easy and natural whereas the difficult and the unnatural seems hard.
How easy is it to step on another’s path?
How easy is it to cut through a jungle another has already cleared a path through?

This is probably not beyond a matter of investigative and calculative measures.

Is it not the same for mental jungles?
How easy is it to think in accordance to previous thoughts?
Is this not the root of all morality and civilization and culture?
Do we not follow, blindly, behind another and judge our progress in relation to his?
Is this not a meme?

That is the "problem with philosophy" right there is it not? The "disease" as you described in the thread of that name. An exercise in futility.

"So why do you think change is so uncomfortable a notion? After all the entire human civilization has been defined by our ability to change... "

because we put so much faith in and value upon the old methods. Once the methods have been seen for what they are there is no reason to continue using them.

"always skip the crap and smoke weed all day, thus releiving ourselves of the plague that pupose and responsibility garantees in intervals. Or find something that provides an equally satisfactory alternative. I have always been privy to new things.
"
Weed relaxes muscles and can give a feeling of there is no responsibility but some can still feel responsibility if they pay attention to it when doing drugs and therefore they need a bigger fix.
There is a conflict in the behaviour you mentioned. If I feel responsible then that means that I want to do this and that, does it not? If not then I do not want to do this- so what's the fuss all about? Either find the middle way or pick one or the other. However in most people there is a struggle. Some call it choosing. This choosing is a concept. You could see a leaf go left and a human go right and say they chose to do this but there is no awareness of the choosing process, is there? The choice that has been made from nowhere is seen and choice itself is also a concept dependant on form, timing etc. Some people belief that they are choosing, that they are aware of the choosing instead of just the result of a mechanism that goes on in your unconsciousness.
Feeling you have to do something means that you really feel yourself going somewhere. If you try to stop that going what will happen? conflict that feels bad, because pain does indeed feel bad, and you try in turn to run away from that. try looking to the left with both eyes and to the right at the same time..
"An exercise in futility."

Yes. But is there a solution to Dukkha?

I would suggest methods to loosen the stronghold of ego that tethers and anchors oneself.

That in turn would seem to suggest that it is possible to carry on regardless except that without an ego you would then feel nothing.

Suffering, the resistance in life, is inevitable and you'll feel it with or with out an ego.

To avoid the resistance design a method to do so, as suggested above, the line of least resistance. It is not so difficult to do with the appropriate will.

Most of what goes wrong is life is self inflicted because of the human appetite for drama, the urge to experiment, to test the limit, to be involved with all sorts of business and adventure that was not required to be our business except to be tempted to relieve a sense of boredom or ambition.

I find that it helps for instance to keep oneself to oneself and to switch the television off, once and for all.

Without all the extra clutter life is peaceful enough.

--- Ron.

hmm interesting satyr. I have a few comments.

"We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will"
This is a crucial part. We do not choose the path that least resists our will because then we would be very proficient. It is the opposite. We try a quick way out("least") by chasing a dream, forcing etc. Dreams, hopes, ambitions are cultural constructs.
We acquire our visions of destiny from the world around us and then strive to live up to its expectations.
This is why identity is always mirrored in others.
We attempt to overcome ourselves, our not-chosen identity/role/part, by overcoming the other which forces us to play the part.

If I dream of being rich it’s because I exist in an environment where this is relevant.

Even the language I speak to myself with is culturally determined, in that it uses cultural ideals and symbols to express an existential issue.

Culture is a shared language and interpretation of patterns.
I comprehend you because we share a perspective on patterns.

but it doesn't work like we would hope it to work. Therefore it is the most resistent.Nothing “works out as it’s supposed to”.
This because man is imperfect supposing a perfect state and trying to realize it.
Disappointment is a natural consequence.

But more than this we fail to predict things because we fail to perceive and/or incorporate all the sensual information available to us into concise, accurate abstractions.
Memory is selective and the mind oversimplifies infinite reality, possibility, so as to fit it into its finitude.
Generalization is how he conceptualize.

We believe something is truth when we’ve taken into account enough information and created a model with it which we can use to predict outcomes.
Success tells us we’re on the right path.

But no model is completely accurate and only relatively so.
Much of success is due to blind chance or due to the fact that we are making predictions in an environment where the others share in our perceptions of reality.

In essence we are creating models of a model or using a common model as our standard.
Culture is such a model.

So the conclusion is we choose the path that is in our view the fastest whereas our view is a thing of the past.Everything is viewed in the past.
By creating abstraction (models) we collect sensual information and analyze them after the fact.

When I say “I”, I am referring to an ambiguous unity existing as an incomplete abstractions of the past or what has already occurred or has been already been chosen as an entity resisting disintegration.
My choice appears determined because I am viewing it when it has already been made.

I am a creature (a biological unity) which exists as a perpetual resistance to flux (time, change, chaos), a self-restricting union of parts seeking order, stability.
This choice is made continuously and unconsciously as an expression of my becoming. Unconsciously because consciousness, as Sartre would say, is the act of negation. I must create a distance between myself and that which I am becoming conscious of – even if this is myself (self-consciousness) – so as to analyze it in hindsight or disconnected from it.
This characteristic of consciousness creates the illusion of a mind/body duality and enables the myth of spirit.

How can you know the fastest way in the mids of the unknown if you are forever in the past, in the known?
Exactly.
The “known” is a choice already made and so limited in a particular time/space and so it becomes comprehensible.
Every choice limits our possibilities.
We exclude infinity by creating finitude. We call this the past.
The past then becomes part of our being, up to that point – a symbol of our character, our history which displays us; written in stone and accessible to all for judgment.

History cannot be rewritten – even if it can be reinterpreted – and it participates in our future because we are always looking backwards for comprehension and so we are affected by what we’ve become familiar with.
Our mind has become accustomed and so finds the repetition of the chosen to be easy.

How can you find order in chaos if you are looking for an order that is by itself of the past? Order is in the past because in a universe in flux there is no stagnate permanence.
Entropy disorganizes and reorganizes continuously. This creates a temporal direction.

Life is a counter-reaction to this. It seeks to become more stable by becoming more efficient in its temporary ordering.
This occurs through autopoesis.
The organism separates itself from the other(s) with a membrane.
This cuts it off, limits it and distinguishes it as a form. It creates a barrier between itself and the flux and attempts to organize itself within it; harmonize and stabilize itself; empower itself. It seeks to separate itself from the time/space and become permanent/eternal (survival).


existabrent
Patterns are systems of inter-relationships we either seek to escape by disconnecting ourselves from them (becoming indifferent/free/independent/individual) or we try to integrate ourselves within (becoming enslaved/protected/depednant/unfree/community).


samcdkey
So why do you think change is so uncomfortable a notion? After all the entire human civilization has been defined by our ability to change...By our ability to adapt to change.

We are creatures of change. So we find change to be our natural state.
We abhor change and yet become bored (superfluous) without it.
This is the irony.

We seek to reach a state which would eliminate our necessity. We strive for our own obsolescence.

When we seek pleasure and paradise and order we seek our oblivion.

Our existence is suffering. When we hope to end suffering we, unconsciously, hope to end living.
We dream of absolutes as a way of dreaming about the end to the flux which created us and which we experience as suffering.


nicholas1M7
Correct. Repetition suffocates, suppresses, shrouds, perpetrates and selects our own wills to power. But it is the necessary, though insufficient "meta-state" of existence that creates structure and coherence in our lives.And therein lies the absurdity of life.
The Tragic/Comic the Hellenes were so aware of.

Where repetition presents the ever-illusive affront science and philosophy can only hope to elucidate between causality and association, but can never.Isn’t logic another way of saying repetitive predictability?

You have to be a god to transcend patterns. Or you can welcome new ones and experience as much satifaction as any god might feel at the birth of existence.Yes, and there lies the meaninglessness of life.
To want to Be what you can never and to find solace (dignity, purpose) in fighting the un-winnable fight. To be defined by what you hopelessly, hope to be.

That is the "problem with philosophy" right there is it not? The "disease" as you described in the thread of that name. An exercise in futility.Yes. Consciousness or self-consciousness is the disease or it is the awakening to disease.
The eternal state of dissatisfaction being defined by its dissatisfaction and thinking it can find satisfaction, even if this would entail its own demise.

The absurdity of the human condition, sometimes raised to holiness.
At least animals or matter never get to become conscious of this absurdity. They are spared the awareness of their own futility.

So what is the alternative, you may ask?
Dance.
Dance like Zorba did.
Embrace it all.
Suffering is not your foe. It is the experience of living.
Do not avoid life.
Welcome the pains and the pleasures equally.

“I hope for nothing, I fear nothing; I am free” – Kazantzakis.
The Hellenic spirit exemplified.
Apollo/Dionysus contained in a single being.

nicholas1M7
And therein lies the absurdity of life.
The Tragic/Comic the Hellenes were so aware of.

Isn’t logic another way of saying repetitive predictability?

Yes, and there lies the meaninglessness of life.
To want to Be what you can never and to find solace (dignity, purpose) in fighting the un-winnable fight. To be defined by what you hopelessly, hope to be.

Yes. Consciousness or self-consciousness is the disease or it is the awakening to disease.
The eternal state of dissatisfaction being defined by its dissatisfaction and thinking it can find satisfaction, even if this would entail its own demise.

The absurdity of the human condition, sometimes raised to holiness.
At least animals or matter never get to become conscious of this absurdity. They are spared the awareness of their own futility.

So what is the alternative, you may ask?
Dance.
Dance like Zorba did.
Embrace it all.
Suffering is not your foe. It is the experience of living.
Do not avoid life.
Welcome the pains and the pleasures equally.

“I hope for nothing, I fear nothing; I am free” – Kazantzakis.
The Hellenic spirit exemplified.
Apollo/Dionysus contained in a single being.


Does existence have a purpose? I don't know. But I found some attempt made by someone to proove so. I couldn't get past the first two paragraphs because I never studied philosophy formally but I was curious about it at least.


In the most general sense, purpose is a logical operation.
In that respect, any "purpose" must reside within a
subdomain of the set of all "if then " statements.

If A then B

A

therefore B

Due to the logically consistent hierarchy of the necessity
of the spatio-temporal sequencing of events and processes,
we do observe the logically ordered hierarchy. Reality must
be logically consistent or we would not exist.

Therefore, because of the paradoxical ramifications of a
"set of all possible sets", where any purpose is required
to be a subset of the set of all logically consistent sets,
we consequently realize that if reality as a whole is
logically consistent, then it must resolve this paradox as
it resolves all paradoxes.

The absolute necessity and universality of this logical
coherence requires a stratified hierarchy of variables and
meta-variables, instantiating causal feedback loops. In
effect, reality forms its own purpose via a self similar
feedback control circuit. A self aware mind.

Any system of logic must ultimately be amenable to a
2-valued logic, in that the proposition is either True or
not-True.


A concept is amenable to a description.

Descriptions must also be amenable to 2 valued logic.

So it becomes an issue of how complete must the description
be, in order for a sufficient logical analysis, e.g. a
"proof".

Description of G is incomplete but that does not prove the
non-existence of G.

The structural properties of distinct entities, for example
- lemons, oranges and apples, share mutual differences that
ultimately manifest themselves as a higher order
similarity. This higher order similarity, consequently
forms a distinct unit in and of itself - ultimately leading
to the realization of a highest ordered relation, a
singular unit that comprises all possible distinctions.

The sub-interrelated entities or units, are distinctions
that function with causal "if then" ramifications. The
clear cut distinctions are the result of a causal nexus,
the highest possible distinction, or unit, in the logical
food chain of if-then statements. This nexus cannot be
separate from itself. Therefore reality must be self
creating.

Incomplete definitions can still be logically consistent
when they are represented by labels. Labels can refer to
necessary concepts. A set is a necessary concept, but is a
set a completely defined concept?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

Quote:
====================
==================
...set theory provides the language in which mathematical
objects are described. It is (along with logic and the
predicate calculus) one of the axiomatic foundations for
mathematics, allowing mathematical objects to be
constructed formally from the undefined terms of "set", and
"set membership".
====================
===================


Omnipotence generates an ostensible paradox due to our
limited knowledge, where it appears that the logic of
juxtapositional contraposition, in spite of its
justification by the standard truth tables for
propositional logic, becomes deductively invalid via a
semantic twist of fate. Say that entity X is defined as
being "omnipotent". Can X create a rock too heavy for X to
lift? If yes, then X is not omnipotent. If no then X is
also not omnipotent. But when omnipotence is defined as
being truly transcendental in nature, that is to say,
omnipotence is the ability to transcend any logical
framework, then the paradox loses its bite. Of course
transcendental arguments then lose coherence because
"anything goes".

In order to quantify and qualify transcendence it
consequently becomes necessary to stratify
transcendence/omnipotence as a system of sequentially
related meta logical variables in arbitrary logical order.
AKA TIME. The exact relationships need not be precisely
defined as long as it is required as a necessary condition
that the relands are systematically and comprehensively
ordered, even though the complete network is not tabulated
down to the last quanta of information.

In other words omnipotence is not without a measure of
control - with respect to the controlling entity. It
becomes a matter of willful non-contradiction on the part
of the entity in question.

Yes, it seems that not all declarative sentences determine
a speci�c proposition, in that any proposition must
be capable of being determined to be either true or false.
Consequently, certain ambiguities force us to determine
that some sentences will require additional
speci�cations in order to express a proposition as
most definitely true or false.

Thus certain fields of meta-analysis exist. We must parse
the necessary and sufficient conditions - with regards to
the staus quo, in reference to the consensical collective.
To wit, does an independent mind exist outside the
collective opinions of those of us? Alas, the shifting
sands of context relevancy determine linguistic
uncertainty, where the necessarily quantifiable parameters
cannot be cordoned off by feeble human intellects grasping
at the straws of fate.

I am just guessing here : yes the definitional parameters
create boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, where the
linguistic mapping necessarily becomes an evolving dynamic.
Any specific premise must be included within a larger
generality where that larger generality is simply a more
specific premise to be included within increasingly higher
levels of generality[I am also assuming that a finite
number of set theoretic inclusions might exist].

These generalities map onto the actual reality in question
as a set theoretic relation. Aristotelian logic provides a
linguistic platform from which multivalued logics represent
the evolving dynamic of the language, which then must be
beholden to the 2-valued logic, such that any particular
statement of the multivalued evolving dynamic, will be
either true or not-true within its respective domain of
applicability and therefore it becomes a highly adaptible
mapping to the reality that is represented. Of course that
might appear to assume that the highest, most inclusive
level is 2-valued logic... Not really though. 2-valued
logic is beholden to the law of identity. Identity is an
invariant. Yes, symmetry forms the basis of truth.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165798/quotes

Quote:
====================
==================
Existing where there is nothing is the meaning of the
phrase, "form is emptiness."

That all things are provided for by nothingness is the
meaning of the phrase, "Emptiness is form."

One should not think that these are two separate things.

[...]

There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of
the moment.

A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment.

If one fully understands the present moment, there is
nothing left to do, and nothing else to pursue.

====================
===================




The existential manifold forms the basis of our perceptual
infrastructure, from which, the distinct attributes of the
whole form relative identities with respect to the other
attributes. Understanding follows from awareness of self
and to fully understand the present moment is an end to the
means, for our perceptual field of dreams.


I just boil it down to "purpose defines existence". Logic and causality are interlinked, but are not necessary to exist. We as a species live by logic in an everyday sense. But we add to it our animal perceptions. So while we're intelligent enough to form concepts, we envy animals for being spared this awareness and cynicism of existence. Animals who aren't intelligent enough to form concepts might see relations. And if not might simply be a living automaton such as a worm or snail, living merely by sense. But in a way we blind and lose ourselves because a part of us envies the lower lifeform. But I believe even animals must have a sense of purpose, whether or not they are intelligent enough to recognize value in it is a matter of their sense of selves and states in relation to their kin. But only in relation to their kin, not beyond. So it is with us. Our egos are what makes us animals in that way.

SATYR
"Dreams, hopes, ambitions are cultural constructs.
We acquire our visions of destiny from the world around us and then strive to live up to its expectations.
This is why identity is always mirrored in others.
We attempt to overcome ourselves, our not-chosen identity/role/part, by overcoming the other which forces us to play the part.

If I dream of being rich it’s because I exist in an environment where this is relevant.

Even the language I speak to myself with is culturally determined, in that it uses cultural ideals and symbols to express an existential issue.

Culture is a shared language and interpretation of patterns.
I comprehend you because we share a perspective on patterns. "

"We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will"
I couldn't make the connection between "paths that least resist our will" and "falling into behavioural patterns". Could you expand on this?

"We are creatures of change. So we find change to be our natural state.
We abhor change and yet become bored (superfluous) without it.
This is the irony.
"
heh, well said.

In classical physics and math, the path of least resistance is a straight line between two points. However, humans should probably subscribe to the quantum physics version, since we are not completely logical. Our psychologies make us interpret "resistance" and "least" completely differently to what they are in reality.

locomotive
"We fall into behavioural patterns because we choose the paths that least resist our Will"
I couldn't make the connection between "paths that least resist our will" and "falling into behavioural patterns". Could you expand on this?I think of it in this way.

A social union is a community of distinct beings who participate in a mutually beneficial relationship which entails a sacrifice of self/independence.
One compromises a part of self in any union. It is, basically, an act of weakness.
Society is based on weakness as its fundamental driving force.
Any social unity, is based on a need which becomes established by evolving the individual to become more and more dependant on it.

This union acts as a distinct organism when the parts are sufficiently integrated (harmonized) within the whole and the self accepts and adapts to its required sacrifice of self-identity.
Once accepted the self acquires its sense of identity directly from the super-organism.
A man identifies with his job, with his social status, with his gender, with his place in the whole, as it is defined and determined by the community.

The less aware, the less the parts possess a sense of identity, the easier it is to be integrated within a whole.
Ants, bees, termites form strong and efficient social unions because each individual lacks self-awareness or the Will to resist integration.
In humans those that are the most insecure or unaware or who lack the spirit of resistance will be the most successful within a social unity because they will be absorbed and integrated the fastest and the easiest.

This unity creates a context of interaction.
We call it culture.
Culture depends of dumbing down its parts so as to harmonize itself. Equalitarianism, Democracy, modern man, in general, is a product of this harmonization.
You can call it domestication and I’ve called it feminization – for various reasons - in an essay I wrote a long time ago.

For whomever is interested in my meagre attempts to understand the world it is posted here (click and scroll down):

http://constantinosa.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_constantinosa_archive.html


There are many effects this dumbing down has.
Far too many to go into in detail here.

Nevertheless, specialization, docility, tolerance, mental stress, "dysfunction" are some of the repercussions.

Notice that self, as I’ve described it, is dependant on discrimination. Self is an act of distinction and intolerance of foreign objects – in other words the exact opposite of what is required for integration.
I distinguish myself by excluding what I am not. Yet, current social norms demand that I include them.
Love becomes universal – all deserve it from me in equal measure and indiscriminately.
My character is determined by how polite, tolerant, accepting, open, docile, peaceful, non-aggressive I am.
I am referred to as civilized but domesticated will do.
Animals that have been domesticated exhibit many of the same traits.

So, in fact, socialization consists in destroying individual identities and replacing them with communal (shared) ones (nationalism, tribalism, idealism, etc.)
Sports are a good example.
Many participate in a teams victories and defeats even if they never contribute anything directly.
They associate themselves with the group and live vicariously through them.
They replace self-consciousness with group-consciousness.
Nationalism is another good example.

Within these new unions, which absorb individuals and integrate them within an order, certain rules apply.
A community of beings shares a language, a moral system, an ideal, a reality, a value system, social rules, a sense of identity, a psychology – a common Will.

Within this ‘reality’ certain behaviors are tolerated and others are not.
The sacrifice of individuality for the sake of integration means that the individual Will, sensing its own limits, avoids the universe’s flux through autopoeisis of a higher level.
Just as the molecules making up your body are distinct organisms that have been integrated within a larger unity for survival – they have sacrificed independence to make up an ‘I’ – so too individuals sacrifice personal freedom (potential, choice) so that they can make their existence easier by creating a barrier between themselves – in unison with many others – and the universe in flux. This establishes order (the ephemeral, imperfect kind) within by limiting choice (freedom).
A new, self-regulating, organism is created.

Within this organism individual Wills are restricted to certain options and dissuaded (crime & punishment – religion – peer pressure) from others.
The Will is faced with the option of least resistance or with that of most resistance. It chooses the easiest; the one with the least suffering.
The sacrifice here is that of quality.
We give up qualitative living for quantitative. We willingly give up certain aspects of the experience of living so as to enjoy more of living.

We do not kill or covet our neighbour’s wife, even if we want to, because the organism, the social unity has made such behaviours costly or because we have been sufficiently integrated within the unity's morality so as to consider such thoughts and action reprehensible.

In this way an individual Will chooses the behavior that will cause it the least problems and that will offer it the highest rewards for the least costs.

I am polite or kind or manly or ambitious or responsible in the way that the society approves of. I acquire a behavior.

In a similar manner a gazelle integrates itself within a herd so as to benefit from communal living.
It sacrifices independence for survival. Its options for self are limited by its need ( potential suffering) and so it follows the path of least resistance as it is established by the combined inter-relationships of every member of the herd.
So it evolves herd instincts because they offer the least resistance to its Will. It’s easier to follow than to lead or to tread on the paths of others than to go off on your own.

But, ironically, integrating into a social unity, relinquishing the individual identity (leaving aside the problem that one must first have it before one can relinquish it),
does not actually prevent suffering. It only transforms it, gives it other objects, while the suffering is still there. In my opinion that suffering is even greater than the one that comes with not relinquishing individual identity.

When you consider all the things that "well-integrated", "normal" people need -- a certain level of material comfort, a certain kind and level of entertainment -- that's insane! To work long hours just so they can buy themselves a big-screen tv, eat in fancy restaurants and go to a spa every week, or at least aim to do so
-- so as to ease their troubled mind -- that is bad business, if you ask me.

Just a few finishing remarks, to my previous post, so as to complete my thoughts on the matter.


In this sacrifice of self to the unity we see the concept of the Hero (hero’s quest as Campbell would say) - the Martyr, the Idealist.

The martyr sacrifices himself in pursuit of the group’s ideal.
He becomes a personification of the ideal – or as close as he can come to it.
He trail-blazes or cuts through the jungle to make the path more easy for the ones to come.
He eases the path-not-taken by taking it and making it comprehensible for the ones to come.
He attracts Wills to it by making it less resistant.
He illuminates the darkness by casting himself against it and shattering himself so that the others can be made aware of what it means to be this ideal.
He becomes a symbol and someone to be emulated and venerated.

In so doing he establishes a behavior others aspire towards; the next step towards a complete realization of the idealized.

Jesus defines the Christian ideal by sacrificing himself in its name and giving it flesh and blood - giving it his name.
He becomes the meme incarnate; God/Spirit made flesh.
It is no longer an abstraction but a reality represented by the hero; a living breathing principle or a historical "fact".

The sin, represents all that goes against the ideals realization. He sacrifices himself to absolve the others of their sins. In other words to inspire them to overcome the human traits which go against the meme’s realization.
(Here we witness the battle of transition from genetic to memetic environments)

Jesus, like all martyrs, becomes a beacon in the darkness for those that are lost and desperate for guidance or who lack the psychological fortitude to cope with the self-responsibility and possibility and solitude of existence.

All heroes or martyrs play the same role.
Suicide bombers make self-sacrificing a model to be emulated.
Ascetics inspire through their example.
And so on.


A few more remarks.

This resistance to the flux is a losing battle.
Absolutes are improbable or they would have already ended (completed) the universe.

The combinations of matter through chance is unable to keep up with a constant entropic decay.
If it were possible a singularity would ensue – perfection would drop out of time/space and become eternal and insubstantial. (matter being a representation of different speeds (levels) of flux: Hard=slow – Soft=fast).
A theoretical singularity is the cessation of all change/time/space/possibility.

So matter, uniting through probability, streamlines its efforts through animation and life and then consciousness and then self-consciousness.
Still evolution fails to completely adapt to ever-changing environments and universal circumstances that result in mass extinction through chance, or seemingly so, occurrences.
The gene fails and so it evolves into a memetic form so as to more rapidly deal with alteration.
A meme becomes the focusing of genetic energies towards specific goals.

The current state of technological advancements (progress) is due to our need to keep up with universal decay; to more efficiently adapt to it, correct it, heal it, order it, know it.
But this is hampered when it forces itself upon a genetic, biological being unable to adapt beyond a certain speed.

Technology takes over, from this point.

(Side note: Truth is not possible because it is constantly changing and one would have to exit it and completely encompass it to know it. This does not mean that there is no ‘Truth’ but that it is knowable to man and never a constant – flux can be defined as the alteration of reality/truth. So man is forced to hypothesize and to exist in perspective truth.)

Here we see the root of all anxieties, as they are expressed in fantasy literature and science-fiction movies, concerning man against machine.

The stress created by the difference in adaptive speeds required, as the meme takes over from the gene, creates psychosis and a sense of alienation in a creature, such as man, used to slower rates of genetic adaptation.
The individual mind struggles to maintain its relevance within a super-organism with a life of its own.
Man’s Will becomes chained to the communal Will and his consciousness is directed by Jung’s “Collective Unconscious”.

Man feels like a “Stranger in a Strange Land”, giving rise to the feeling that one is born out of context or in the “wrong” era and also giving rise to a turn to ancient environments as preferable.
Where individual man mattered.


water
But, ironically, integrating into a social unity, relinquishing the individual identity (leaving aside the problem that one must first have it before one can relinquish it),
does not actually prevent suffering. It only transforms it, gives it other objects, while the suffering is still there. In my opinion that suffering is even greater than the one that comes with not relinquishing individual identity.True there is no identity, only the pursuit of it.
One either pursuit it in unison or in relation to other consciousnesses seeking identity themselves or one does it in relation to inanimate objects.

I am me because I am not a rock or I am me because the other thinks I am this or that.
In the first case my self-awareness is still undetermined. I just know what I am not.
In the second case the other provides an identity for me. His opinion becomes the mask I wear.

When you relinquish the pursuit for individual identity you dilute yourself, and your sense of suffering, within the multiplicity.
It is not only you suffering but the community or the entire family.
You are not responsible for self but the community becomes responsible for you.
You give up choice, freedom, and adopt whatever choices are made available through the collective.

By sharing pain and misery is made more bearable. We lose ourselves.

When you consider all the things that "well-integrated", "normal" people need -- a certain level of material comfort, a certain kind and level of entertainment -- that's insane! To work long hours just so they can buy themselves a big-screen tv, eat in fancy restaurants and go to a spa every week, or at least aim to do so
-- so as to ease their troubled mind -- that is bad business, if you ask me.Indeed.
It is a coping mechanism.

To avoid suffering it does help to look after oneself, which is not so easy with no self to look after.

I have tried this both ways, and with no doubt about the result of the experiment.

No ego is but one step from I don't matter.......nobody cares for me.......why bother......somebody has to lose so it may as well be me........ and so on, ad absurdum, easy prey.

--- Ron.

By sharing pain and misery (it) [sic] is made more bearable. We lose ourselves.You're contradicting yourself, for, somewhere else, you lecture on the commitment to find other mind-alikenesses so as to group, prosper, and re-create. Why is it then that in pain and misery, such same mind-alikenesses are no longer valid but detrimental to one's identity? In pain and misery, identity is sometimes a signal-divulgement which would otherwise not be exposed.

You're contradicting yourself, for, somewhere else, you lecture on the commitment to find other mind-alikenesses so as to group, prosper, and re-create. Why is it then that in pain and misery, such same mind-alikenesses are no longer valid but detrimental to one's identity? In pain and misery, identity is sometimes a signal-divulgement which would otherwise not be exposed.
How is that a “contradiction”?

I simply state that it is part of the human condition or the natural state of things to combine into more intricate unities and thusly seek out a stability that can never be had.

To Need is not to be avoided.
How much one Needs and how much this Need controls us is a matter of individual efforts and particular strengths/weaknesses.

The drive to socialize is unavoidable. A single individual cannot do it on its own.
With whom one congregates and associates himself with, or within which unity he sacrifices his identity in and identifies with, is what characterizes him.
Identity is non-existent.

We are what we strive to become. From the get-go we are doomed to failure.
We are Nothing towards Something, life unto death.

I guess I could bullshit you and tell you that it is noble to cast off on one’s own and live in solitude, but this neither will lead to this individuals independence nor to any salvation.
He will be dependant on something and someone.

I am not advocating a course of action nor stating a “right” way.
I am simply describing the state of affairs, as I perceive them.

Information is only information.
What one does with it is up to each individual to figure out on his/her own.

When you relinquish the pursuit for individual identity you dilute yourself, and your sense of suffering, within the multiplicity.
It is not only you suffering but the community or the entire family.
You are not responsible for self but the community becomes responsible for you.
You give up choice, freedom, and adopt whatever choices are made available through the collective.

By sharing pain and misery is made more bearable. We lose ourselves.

There are people who offer you masks to wear, once you share your troubles with them. People who give you wordswordswords and empty hugs.


And then there are people who ... breathe with you. With them, you don't lose yourself.

Identity is non-existent.

Yikes. Then the whole talk about individuals, integrating etc. is bull.

In the context of resistance conformity is the more appropriate concept.

A resistant individual is a non conformist.


--- Ron.

In the context of resistance conformity is the more appropriate concept.

A resistant individual is a non conformist.


--- Ron.

And non-conformists are the harbingers of change.

There are people who offer you masks to wear, once you share your troubles with them. People who give you wordswordswords and empty hugs.
And then there are people who ... breathe with you. With them, you don't lose yourself.

I find that offline is better than online, easier at least to find my way to the bedroom.

--- Ron.

You mean to say that our will, formed by culture, drives us to a point where the goal is accomplished? And this accomplishment would be least resisting to our will because it is our will?

hey perplexity, is that you in the bathtub?

Satyr:
How is that a “contradiction”?
I wasn't accounting for the entire thread when I hi-lighted the "contradiction". I only started reading this thread at point Water, and was hence looking out for your response to her.

She spoke of relinquishing one's individual identity within the framework of a larger, different social unity, but that a suffering will not so effectively follow suit and integrate itself alongside one's relinquished identity, that the suffering will remain, but transformed, often beefed up in consequence of that larger, different social unity.

She thought that ironic. And it is, isn't it?

However, in your response, you missed that point. Instead, you spoke of no identities and the pursuit of identity in unison with or in relation to others (the larger, different social unity). But then you spoke of the fallout of relinquishing the pursuit, that identity will be diluted within the multiplicity, but so will one's suffering. This is the opposite of Water's claim (and most likely her own personal experience).

But I wasn't responding to that part, but to the following, and only to the following:

Satyr: By sharing pain and misery, it is made more bearable.

Agreed.

But, you continue:

Satyr: By sharing pain and misery, it is made more bearable. We lose ourselves.

I took that to mean that in sharing pain and misery we lose ourselves within the framework of a larger community; that we dilute our individual identity, followed by our suffering.

Yet, when you promote your own pursuit, you speak not so much of dilution but of augmentation.

<hr size="1" />
Water:
And then there are people who ... breathe with you. With them, you don't lose yourself.
That is so beautifully put, Water. I understand what you mean. It may seem that Satyr doesn't *understand* the magnitude of certain types of suffering...

<hr size="1" />
I find that offline is better than online, easier at least to find my way to the bedroom.

--- Ron.
Or keeping well clear of it!

Woohoo! We've got ourselves another SELF thread!


*Accompanying audio-visual:
Have you ever seen a big building collapsing into itself, like when they dynamite it?
That's what this is like.*


Okay now.

If there is no identity, then the concepts of "integrating" or "individualizing" (and others accompanying them) are pointless. If there is no identity, there is nothing to integrate, or to individualize, or to find, or to lose.

The "pursuit of identity" is then a better term. Something can be pursued by oneself, or along with others.

Still, to me, the term "identity" (when used to talk about persons) has the air of being a pipe dream. If something is to be considered "identity", then it should be context-independent, absolute, existing on its own. But as of yet, I see no reason to think that such a thing is something humans posses or can posses.

So what is it that we are actually aiming for, what is it that we are pursuing when we say we are pursuing identity?

If something is to be considered "identity", then it should be context-independent, absolute, existing on its own.
Why do you think so? Is it how you define identity, something complete and absolute?

Still, to me, the term "identity" (when used to talk about persons) has the air of being a pipe dream. If something is to be considered "identity", then it should be context-independent, absolute, existing on its own. But as of yet, I see no reason to think that such a thing is something humans posses or can posses.

I had rather understood Satyr's point to be that a person's context identifies the person, which would appear to me to be a perfectly valid proposition.

Consider this for instance:

There are people who offer you masks to wear, once you share your troubles with them. People who give you wordswordswords and empty hugs.
And then there are people who ... breathe with you. With them, you don't lose yourself.

Does it appear to identitify two types of person, independent of context?

To me it would rather identify a different context, one like water, hidden behind empty online mask, nothing but wordswordswords emptiness and suffering, the other actually with somebody, in person, breath to breath, not so lost, lonely and hopeless.

The difference there, I feel, is significant enough to identify.

--- Ron.

Meantime,
She spoke of relinquishing one's individual identity within the framework of a larger, different social unity, but that a suffering will not so effectively follow suit and integrate itself alongside one's relinquished identity, that the suffering will remain, but transformed, often beefed up in consequence of that larger, different social unity.

She thought that ironic. And it is, isn't it?Only if it is so.

She’s trying to establish the significance of her own suffering and remain an "innocent" victim.

Suffering doesn’t really diminish or go away just as the flux never stops.

Only the awareness of it diminishes – if enough then we experience it as relief/pleasure.
Losing one’s self in others is a method of distracting one’s self from one’s own endless Need/Suffering.

Life feeds on itself.
It seeks satisfaction and completeness in the unsatisfied and incomplete and so is doomed to fail. Ergo we get constant construction and destruction as one form disintegrates into another never reaching completeness.
We attempt to stabilize ourselves, heal ourselves, by feeding on that which is also unstable and diseased and so our hunger is never satiated - forever hungry.

There isn’t an identity to “relinquish” but only a search for identity.
One simply avoids the Nothingness/Emptiness of what is called Self using others.

So, one grabs onto the first semblance of identity the other offers.
His opinion of us – especially if it is bolstered by multiple opinions of us – determines our opinions of ourselves.

Where we seek identity is what establishes our ideals.

I took that to mean that in sharing pain and misery we lose ourselves within the framework of a larger community; that we dilute our individual identity, followed by our suffering. I meant it to mean that in sharing we forget ourselves in the other. We escape the suffering my unburdening a portion of it upon the other or by escaping the awareness of it, through distraction.

Entertainment is such a mechanism of escape.

Yet, when you promote your own pursuit, you speak not so much of dilution but of augmentation.Yes.
One must embrace suffering/life in order to grow towards the unattainable.

We never reach a final peak, we only climb onto heights or fall from them.
The peak we choose or are coerced into climbing determines how we grow and towards which direction.


But I was hoping to keep this thread impersonal.

That is so beautifully put, Water. I understand what you mean. It may seem that Satyr doesn't *understand* the magnitude of certain types of suffering...Or, perhaps, I understand much better than you.
The “magnitude” of suffering is a matter of perspective.

One not used to hunger will find any prolonged period of fasting unbearable. The “magnitude” will be profound.
To one brought up in an environment where hunger was common, it will not seem so big a deal.

Now tell me who the pampered martyr is here?


locomotive
You mean to say that our will, formed by culture, drives us to a point where the goal is accomplished? And this accomplishment would be least resisting to our will because it is our will?Yes.
Or more accurately because it is a common, already achievable goal it has become easier.


water
Woohoo! We've got ourselves another SELF thread!Me thinks that, like most feminine minds, Water loooooves these types of threads.

*Accompanying audio-visual:
Have you ever seen a big building collapsing into itself, like when they dynamite it?
That's what this is like.*I can hardly wait for the fireworks.

This is where the thread turns into a babbling, emotional wreck where invalids unload themselves and seek support and attention in others.

Let’s talk about how much we’ve been wronged by the world, how much we’ve suffered for our ‘goodness’.
Let us avoid the possibility that our disappointments might be due to our erroneous assessments and romantic idealisms.
Let us blame someone else for ourselves.

You start.

If there is no identity, then the concepts of "integrating" or "individualizing" (and others accompanying them) are pointless.Are you arguing from the perspective of absolutes, silly rabbit?

There are levels of realization, no completeness.

Did you read anything I wrote or did you selectively interpret it in accordance with your desired outcome?

If there is no identity, there is nothing to integrate, or to individualize, or to find, or to lose.Only potential.
My identity is constituted by which identity I pursue.

It is incomplete and fragile and indefinable.
My character is determined by my ambitions.

So what is it that we are actually aiming for, what is it that we are pursuing when we say we are pursuing identity?An end.

You could refer to it using one of its many absolute labels:

Perfection – Harmony – Substance – Stability – Eternity – Oblivion – Realization – Independence – Freedom - Self-Sufficiency – Self – Identity.

What differentiates us is the how what we pursue.

Woohoo! We've got ourselves another SELF thread!


*Accompanying audio-visual:
Have you ever seen a big building collapsing into itself, like when they dynamite it?
That's what this is like.*


Okay now.

If there is no identity, then the concepts of "integrating" or "individualizing" (and others accompanying them) are pointless. If there is no identity, there is nothing to integrate, or to individualize, or to find, or to lose.

The "pursuit of identity" is then a better term. Something can be pursued by oneself, or along with others.

Still, to me, the term "identity" (when used to talk about persons) has the air of being a pipe dream. If something is to be considered "identity", then it should be context-independent, absolute, existing on its own. But as of yet, I see no reason to think that such a thing is something humans posses or can posses.

So what is it that we are actually aiming for, what is it that we are pursuing when we say we are pursuing identity?

Expression?

I have certain mannerisms, a result of a synergetic agreement between body, mind, and spirit, hence a visibly active temperament. Although I am attracted to very different types of temperament, and enjoy distinct accomplishments in temperament, and sometimes wish to embrace these assorted temperaments, I also recognize that I don't have the same capacities to express myself as they do, to act as they do, to move, think, touch as they do, and they likewise as me: hence, from across the bridge, we acknowledge one another. In this scenario, our identities of expression render our personalities and our capacities differently—we can bridge across the gulf, but we will never be as one another.

That's why Satyr's claim to identity doesn't quite sit well with me because I, in a different forest, will recognize nonconformity and distinction as steadfast qualities of being. I see a foundation where he sees nonidentity, I see unlikeness where he sees nothingness, I see identity where he sees a template, I see attraction where he sees dilution, I see contact where he sees need, I see substance where he sees illusion, I see admittance where he sees diminution, I see aggrandizement where he sees bulwark, I see construction where he sees effectiveness, and on and on and on.

Satyr: She’s trying to establish the significance of her own suffering and remain an "innocent" victim.

One isn't trying to establish significance when one is already undergoing a significant experience: to be in the now, as you so much honor, is to be perfectly aware of what has already been established. The significance is already apparent.

Now tell me who the pampered martyr is here?


I like that phrase, pampered martyr.

Poor sport though, the question.

This is where the thread turns into a babbling, emotional wreck where invalids unload themselves and seek support and attention in others.

Let’s talk about how much we’ve been wronged by the world, how much we’ve suffered for our ‘goodness’.
Let us avoid the possibility that our disappointments might be due to our erroneous assessments and romantic idealisms.
Let us blame someone else for ourselves.
You start.

Please, no, no, not again. That would get me going as well, and then it is like World War III needs to happen.

A link or two to the previous rehearsal would suffice.

---- Ron.

Satyr: Only the awareness of it diminishes – if enough then we experience it as relief/pleasure

Depending on the type of suffering involved: one might also identify a group of people very well for qualities that that group might otherwise not have revealed, such as stupid misunderstandings, willful misrepresentations, spiteful accusations, ridiculous ridicule—all the typical shabbiness of character that ignobility has to offer but would otherwise camouflage.

One isn't trying to establish significance when one is already undergoing a significant experience: to be in the now, as you so much honor, is to be perfectly aware of what has already been established. The significance is already apparent.

But there is no "one", no context-independent, finite and analytically definable self, is there?

That would require a sense of personal responsibility.

--- Ron.

Satyr: We never reach a final peak, we only climb onto heights or fall from them.

What about the moment?

Satyr: But I was hoping to keep this thread impersonal.

Oh you have, as far as I'm concerned. But on my side of the cliff, I'm very much involved because I speak from experience—not from dogma.

Satyr: Or, perhaps, I understand much better than you.
The “magnitude” of suffering is a matter of perspective.

One not used to hunger will find any prolonged period of fasting unbearable. The “magnitude” will be profound.
To one brought up in an environment where hunger was common, it will not seem so big a deal.

Now tell me who the pampered martyr is here?

Obviously you are because you have absolutely no idea man what I've gone through in life yet you have the gall, the gall to evaluate, judge, and condemn me without a shred of evidence. I, on the other hand, extrapolated from what you've said of yourself here and now—not from a life you haven't said.

But there is no "one", no context-independent, finite and analytically definable self, is there?

I don't know about that. However:


That would require a sense of personal responsibility.

Believing in the law of karma accounts for the same as personal responsibility.

perplexity
Poor sport though, the question.According to which moral standard?


Meantime,
I know you are loving this.
Depending on the type of suffering involved: one might also identify a group of people very well for qualities that that group might otherwise not have revealed, such as stupid misunderstandings, willful misrepresentations, spiteful accusations, ridiculous ridicule—all the typical shabbiness of character that ignobility has to offer but would otherwise camouflage.“Ignobility” …..”…shabbiness of character”?!
What is “nobility” and according to which communal standard should someone’s character be judged as shabby?

What about the moment?I’m becoming more and more convinced that you sort of skim through my posts or that you fail to comprehend them.

“Moment”?

There’s a moment to the extent that there is a Self or a place.
A generalization denoting a hypothetical point (absolute) and encompassed within ambiguity and the perceptible speeds of thinking.

When we pursue self or identity or an end we are, in essence, pursuing the elusive moment – the singularity.

The closer one comes to the concept the closer one becomes complete and timeless – God.

Oh you have, as far as I'm concerned. But on my side of the cliff, I'm very much involved because I speak from experience—not from dogma.I speak from experience as well.
I just try to keep as much emotion out of it as possible.

Don’t hate me because I have organized my experiences into concise and organized systems.
Feeling yourself through life is a recipe for disaster. It keeps you in a state of self-victimization, even while you blame others for it.

Obviously you are because you have absolutely no idea man what I've gone through in life yet you have the gull, the gulle without a shred of evidence. I, on the other hand, extrapolated from what you've said of yourself here and now—not from a life you haven't said. :D Obviously.

This is where we vie for communal pity.

“…you have no idea….maaaaaan!”
*boo hoo, hoo*

It would seem, from what we can “extrapolate” from your writings that you are forever trapped in your past experiences and that you have not gone beyond them….learned from them and grown because of them.
The wounds still bleed and have not hardened into beautiful scars.
Your body/mind hasn’t healed.

Your experiences still have an emotional impact upon your reason and you remain enslaved by suffering, like those you can relate to, within the role of eternal innocent victim.
You fail to learn from your past and overcome your past and its affects on you because they are still affecting you. There is no distance there.
You cannot analyze them objectively and so you do so emotionally.
You are stuck in a loop.

Doomed to repeat what you have failed to comprehend – abstract into accurate representations and create strategies (adaptations) in response.

Do you know the best way to “extrapolate” another’s past and what he’s suffered and how he’s responded to diversity?
You study his present.

I know a bodybuilder has suffered and worked and sweated and dieted because of his present physique.
He represents the sum of his past experiences projected forward into a hoped for ideal.
I may not know the details but I know his general history (racial, national, experiential etc.) which manifest themselves in his continuous becoming.

because I speak from experience—not from dogma.
.... I, on the other hand, extrapolated from what you've said of yourself here and now—not from a life you haven't said.

Juvenile bickering, risible.

Either could say the same and either proves nothing.

If you have got a story to tell, tell it.

---- Ron.

I can hardly wait for the fireworks.

This is where the thread turns into a babbling, emotional wreck where invalids unload themselves and seek support and attention in others.

For a satyr, you have a dreadful lack of humour and playfulness.

* * *


You, too, had beef with me once as well.
I'm sorry.

Believing in the law of karma accounts for the same as personal responsibility.

I am afraid not.

The belief assumes nothing more than that karma takes care of it.

Responsibility assumes the need to speak, to plead to account to those we deal with, hence identity.

--- Ron.

And to think, I used to pay for this kind of therapy. Pffft.
Please Continue.

For a satyr, you have a dreadful lack of humour and playfulness.
* * *
You, too, had beef with me once as well.
I'm sorry.

If it makes a difference, I am sorry too, but I'd rather play than be sorry.

Lighten up. Not yet the end of the World.

--- Ron.

I am afraid not.

The belief assumes nothing more than that karma takes care of it.

That has an important implication --
Believing in karma posits that *you* are doing things, and that what you do *matters*.

See the Five Subjects for Frequent Recollection:

I am the owner of my kamma,
heir to my kamma,
born of my kamma,
related to my kamma,
abide supported by my kamma.
Whatever kamma I shall do, whether good or evil, of that I shall be the heir.

Humans are driven to seek happiness, that is a given.
If one pays attention to one's actions, heeding that one will fall heir to their consequences, then this will inform one's course of action -- which then has the same practical effect as heeding "personal responsibility".

That has an important implication --
Believing in karma posits that *you* are doing things, and that what you do *matters*.

.......
If one pays attention to one's actions, heeding that one will fall heir to their consequences, then this will inform one's course of action -- which then has the same practical effect as heeding "personal responsibility".

Responsibility per se is the need to answer for.

When somebody wants to know "why did you do that?" I am prepared to tell them because I mind what I do and I do what I mind.

I don't see how karma fullfils that practical effect. It may certainly help to, but a good deal more is required.

--- Ron.

Poor sport though, the question.

According to which moral standard?

Mine. I call it the why bother standard.

---- Ron.

Responsibility per se is the need to answer for.

When somebody wants to know "why did you do that?" I am prepared to tell them because I mind what I do and I do what I mind.

I don't see how karma fullfils that practical effect. It may certainly help to, but a good deal more is required.

I put karma and responsibility under the same heading in the sense that both call for taking into account the consequences of one's actions.

As for the need to answer for -- I do not see how that is a need per se.

Whom one will answer for is a matter of one's own choosing, and not a need.
It can be considered a need within a certain interpersonal contract.
But if such a contract does not exist, then holding someone responsible, expecting them to answer for their actions, is merely unilaterally imposed.

If there is no contract, nobody owes nothing to anybody.

Humans are driven to seek happiness, that is a given.
If one pays attention to one's actions, heeding that one will fall heir to their consequences, then this will inform one's course of action -- which then has the same practical effect as heeding "personal responsibility".


Purpose implies reason. I suppose we could argue that the responsibility of living was given to us and this would justify the substance of purpose in regards to humans. This would give credit to identity. But whether it does or not, our condition appears to be permanent and possibly uncompromisable.

Responsibility assumes the need to speak, to plead to account to those we deal with, hence identity.

That is the Western understanding of responsibility, as far as I know.
It seems to be strongly influenced by Christianity and its concept of a soul -- an identity that is context-independent and absolute.



Also, if one has the need to speak, to plead to account to those one deals with --
that supposes others will indulge that need, satisfy it.

In my experience, people aren't all too happy to listen to the reasons why one did this or that.

I put karma and responsibility under the same heading in the sense that both call for taking into account the consequences of one's actions.

As for the need to answer for -- I do not see how that is a need per se.

Whom one will answer for is a matter of one's own choosing, and not a need.
It can be considered a need within a certain interpersonal contract.
But if such a contract does not exist, then holding someone responsible, expecting them to answer for their actions, is merely unilaterally imposed.

If there is no contract, nobody owes nothing to anybody.

In which case this

Accept this. Stop talking about me or referencing to me. Stop mentioning my name.

Is nothing but a futile indulgence of personal vanity, right?

And what by the way would it hope to achieve in terms of resistance?

Looks remarkably resistive to me.


Also, if one has the need to speak, to plead to account to those one deals with --
that supposes others will indulge that need, satisfy it.

In my experience, people aren't all too happy to listen to the reasons why one did this or that.

And you thereby betray the extent of the luxury of the seclusion of your pampered life.

Others have to answer to employers or customers, to their relatives and to the law.

Some would be required to pass exams, for instance, to provide a curriculum vitae.

This is all a part of normal responsibility, not rocket science or abstruse philosophy.

If they're not bothered why this or that, do something more useful.

It might also be a good idea to stop worrying why this or that if nobody wants to know anyway.


--- Ron.

Purpose implies reason. I suppose we could argue that the responsibility of living was given to us and this would justify the substance of purpose in regards to humans. This would give credit to identity. But whether it does or not, our condition appears to be permanent and possibly uncompromisable.

Did you ever apply for a passport?

Would you thus perhaps need to be somebody?

--- Ron.

Karma: A word denoting a reciprocal relationship.
When I behave I invite a similar behavior in return from the environment (others).

Social Karma: The community’s vengeance, control, reward, punishment against the individual.
How discipline to communal standards is enforced.
The unwritten common rule of interdependence – morality.
The individual fears the consequences of his actions and so restricts them to those that are mutually beneficial or that only benefit the other (ethics).
He invites positive Karma.

The law of “the path of least resistance” made plain.
Suffering leads to growth and independence and overcoming and empowerment and indifference.
When we suffer we are made more – if we survive.

“What does not kill me only serves to make me stronger” Nietzsche.

The easiest path is to conform to common paths, made all the more easier through their popularity and commonality. Through pooling of resources a group softens resistance from its environment. Hard resistance (cost) dissuades individuals from certain paths and funnels them towards particular easier routes – those that have already been established by the group and treaded upon by icons (martyrs, heroes).
The individual becomes complacent and weaker by choosing the easiest path. He softens and becomes ignorant and hedonistic (happy) – atrophy ensues.

Responsibility for self is also lessened by taking popular paths and adhering to common rules.
The group takes on the responsibility for all its participants when they conform to its tenets – common Will, common identification.

The one is supposed to show respect and reverence towards the whole he depends upon and so re-establish his dependence upon them. He is dissuaded from creating distances from them or distinguishing himself from them – negating them.

Indifference is an expression of power.
It is an expression of utter independence and distance.
When I seek identity I separate myself from that which I am not.
This requires effort.
It results in solitude, self-responsibility, freedom, independence.
I can only rely on my own energies for my own realization and so I embrace all the costs and my entire being as nothingness (suffering).

Care is dependence and so weakness.
When I care I defer my power unto that which I care for.

I care for that which I am affected by.
I become aloof towards that which does not affect me.
This, immediately, makes a loving, caring God an absurdity or a hopeful expectation with no justification (faith).



A quick and incomplete expression of my opinions on the matter.

I was just thinking, resistance could just be a pipedream, and we're bound by our cognitive capacities to follow patterns. Or when we attempt to resist resistance we fall into the path of least resistance and then we dream of resisting it. :bugeye: A vicious cycle of the cynical. Then we cry and bitch about it and call it "art". :D

Did you ever apply for a passport?

Would you thus perhaps need to be somebody?

--- Ron.

:bugeye: I meant "identity" as "I" or "me" as opposed to "the big picture" i.e. the universe is manifesting itself as this body. Just a theory. Kind of like how lower lifeforms and inanimate objects would view themselves if they viewed themself at all.

Sat: I know you are loving this.

It would amuse you to know the real reason why I entered this thread. Ask Athena. Oh, but you can't reach her—you, uh, fall off mountains.

Sat: I’m becoming more and more convinced that you sort of skim through my posts or that you fail to comprehend them.

It's just that you speak like a charter, finger like a pope, and emanate as thermal or non-thermal kinetic energy—dependent on whose identity rests against yours. Ah, but there's no actual identity, is there? Excuse me then: hence dependent on whose mirror you fancy to look into.

Sat: Do you know the best way to “extrapolate” another’s past and what he’s suffered and how he’s responded to diversity? You study his present.

I'm not studying you, my dear man—I react. In the present. And I've never extrapolated beyond the context of a given thread, and by whatever you choose or not choose to exhibit. I will not dare assume a personal history of your existence based on what I find here. And why should I? Likewise, I would expect the same of you. But, ah no, you will invent labels and assumptions and scenarios, as you already have, outside the context of these threads, and assume you've painted my portrait. But I assure you: you haven't.

So, to continue where I left off earlier on, where I see imperviousness, you see resistance. Go figure.

Sat: “…you have no idea….maaaaaan!”

Yeah, no kiddin': I actually talk like that—maaaaan. So I'm a beatnik: big shit.

Sat: you remain enslaved by suffering, like those you can relate to, within the role of eternal innocent victim.

God, Wanderer: hang it up already! Funny thing is that you're embarrassing yourself only to me...

Sat: I know a bodybuilder has suffered and worked and sweated and dieted because of his present physique.

I knew a bodybuilder who simply willed his chosen physique. Everything else was part of the deal and fell into place.

Karma: A word denoting a reciprocal relationship.
When I behave I invite a similar behavior in return from the environment (others).

Not necessarily. Actions affect the person acting regardless of anybody else. Actions form habits and attitudes.

This is because your perception is your most important action, your most important choice. How you see it is how you feel about it, and how see it tomorrow derives from how you see it today.

These are karmic choices, regardless of other people.

In any given external circumstance there is no such thing as a correct thinking to produce the correct result or the correct effect because the thought always depends upon the inherent personal condition.

Otherwise we really would be helpless victims, nothing more than a pawn to be pushed around in the social game.

--- Ron.

:bugeye: I meant "identity" as "I" or "me" as opposed to "the big picture" i.e. the universe is manifesting itself as this body. Just a theory. Kind of like how lower lifeforms and inanimate objects would view themselves if they viewed themself at all.

Here we go again then, with the context-independent, finite and analytically definable self.

For the sake of argument then, suppose that the Universe as you perceive it is your self, the net result of all that your self has as yet been and become.

Is it possible to refute the proposition?

Is it possible to prove an existence apart from your senses?

--- Ron.

The problem of identity as put forward in this thread, summed up so far, is in roundabout this:


There is the concept of "everyday, practical identity" (that which is concerning a person's name, age, gender, education, social status etc.)

and then there is the "metaphysical" or "philosophical" or "mathematical" concept of identity (which is about something that is context-independent, finite and analytically definable).

These two overlap to some extent, but they are not the same.
However, we seemingly cannot understand one without the other. Hence our problems.

Karma: A word denoting a reciprocal relationship.
When I behave I invite a similar behavior in return from the environment (others).

Try this article for comparison:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html

Consider this for instance:
/.../


Does it appear to identitify two types of person, independent of context?

No, I don't see it that way. I see it in terms of "chemistry", for the lack of a less esoteric word.

Some people, one can just get along, regardless of context.
And some people, even in the most favourable contexts, do not have this chemistry together.

How this has to do with the person's identity (in both senses, as outlined in the above post), is speculation, in my opinion.

Speculation because -- Say, you think a person is wonderful (or awful). But are they so? Are they so 24/7? Thing is, people have all sorts of traits, even mutually exclusive ones.

While analytically defining those traits and thus establishing the person's identity may seem useful, it is also a misleading speculation actively denying the reality that people change and that they aren't necessarily what or who one thinks they are.
-- One creates onself an identity, an image of the other person, and then expects them to be so. And if the other person does something that isn't in accord with that image, then some people say the other person is lying, pretending, a chameleon etc.

Focusing on the chemistry eliminates these analytical classifications. It does, however, leave one to rely on intuition, which can be precarious.

The problem of identity as put forward in this thread, summed up so far, is in roundabout this:


There is the concept of "everyday, practical identity" (that which is concerning a person's name, age, gender, education, social status etc.)

and then there is the "metaphysical" or "philosophical" or "mathematical" concept of identity (which is about something that is context-independent, finite and analytically definable).

These two overlap to some extent, but they are not the same.
However, we seemingly cannot understand one without the other. Hence our problems.


Thankyou, I misunderstood. I am somewhat still unclear about what you mean when you say they overlap. If you could elaborate on this I would be curious to know more.

Here we go again then, with the context-independent, finite and analytically definable self.

For the sake of argument then, suppose that the Universe as you perceive it is your self, the net result of all that your self has as yet been and become.

Is it possible to refute the proposition?

No it shouldn't be possible. It is not a matter of knowing consciously and actively with effort that you are part of the universe but by simple experience I would guess. Don't put mush emphasis on that I was just throwing that thought out there.

Is it possible to prove an existence apart from your senses?

The answer would be no I should say. Unless it has been proven that we can prove an existence that is external to our experience.

No, I don't see it that way. I see it in terms of "chemistry", for the lack of a less esoteric word.

Some people, one can just get along, regardless of context.
And some people, even in the most favourable contexts, do not have this chemistry together.

How this has to do with the person's identity (in both senses, as outlined in the above post), is speculation, in my opinion.

I had thought the point was obvious enough, "Some people, one can just get along, " seems to identify a type of person. It appears to discriminate.


Speculation because -- Say, you think a person is wonderful (or awful). But are they so? Are they so 24/7? Thing is, people have all sorts of traits, even mutually exclusive ones.

While analytically defining those traits and thus establishing the person's identity may seem useful, it is also a misleading speculation actively denying the reality that people change and that they aren't necessarily what or who one thinks they are.
-- One creates onself an identity, an image of the other person, and then expects them to be so. And if the other person does something that isn't in accord with that image, then some people say the other person is lying, pretending, a chameleon etc.

I would have thought it more to the point that people create and present an image of themselves.

Do you agree that they do? Do you admit that you do?

I don't know what your "Stockholm syndrome" should mean to imply if not the chameleon tendency, to change appearance to fit the surrounding.

What otherwise, please, was this about:

I would be nice and feel guilty if I wouldn't be nice, and then one thing lead to another, all built on delusion, all fake. Granted, with occasional bouts of genuineness, but all in all, fake in inception. Ending up in what looked like good friendships or romance, while I was cringing inside at the thought of spending time with that person.


http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1072104#post1072104

Something "fake" is presumably something to be responsible for.

That is the usual meaning of the word, fraudulent, deliberately false, not a word to sport with lightly with much at stake.

Focusing on the chemistry eliminates these analytical classifications. It does, however, leave one to rely on intuition, which can be precarious.

So what then is "Some people, one can just get along, regardless of context." if not an analytical classification?
What do you prefer to call it?

I would not have said that intuition is precarious, unadulterated intuition that is. Intuition has served me well in life. It is an intuition indeed that keeps me going with this, with you, an intuition well beyond reason.

I would agree that psychological projection mistaken for intuition is precarious, to say the least.

I would agree that a judgement based on nothing but intuition is precarious, open talk of duplicity but with no proof to show, that sort of thing.

From day to day I would rather settle for jurisprudence, which has also served me very well in life.

--- Ron.

No it shouldn't be possible. It is not a matter of knowing consciously and actively with effort that you are part of the universe but by simple experience I would guess. Don't put mush emphasis on that I was just throwing that thought out there.


In which case I am disposed to agree.

In so far as I may or may not exist as something context-independent, finite and analytically definable, so what?

The obsession perplexes me.

When I fill in a passport form it comes rather as a relief, not to have to prove it.

--- Ron.

The problem of identity as put forward in this thread, summed up so far, is in roundabout this:


There is the concept of "everyday, practical identity" (that which is concerning a person's name, age, gender, education, social status etc.)

and then there is the "metaphysical" or "philosophical" or "mathematical" concept of identity (which is about something that is context-independent, finite and analytically definable).

These two overlap to some extent, but they are not the same.
However, we seemingly cannot understand one without the other. Hence our problems.

Thankyou, I misunderstood. I am somewhat still unclear about what you mean when you say they overlap. If you could elaborate on this I would be curious to know more.

They overlap in several ways:

-- The everyday identity is measured with standards of the metaphysical identity:
We tend to expect that a person will "stay themselves", stay the same, not change over time.
We tend to expect that a person will have a set of traits that are consistent and not contradictory (e.g. we tend to find it disturbing to find a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat because he doesn't want animals to suffer -- but who wears genuine leather).
We tend to expect that a person will behave the same way regardless of context (e.g. we tend to find it disturbing if a person whom we know as "cheerful and funny" once is all gloomy and angry).
(These expectations go for others as well as for ourselves, we tend to expect ourselves to be a certain way.)


-- While the everyday identity consists of mere data (name, address, age, gender, education, etc.), we often imbue it with an ethical value as derived from the speaker's philosophical, ethical or religious worldview. That is shown esp. in our dislike of being "treated like a number" (in institutions -- as a medical patient, student, customer etc.).

I had thought the point was obvious enough, "Some people, one can just get along, " seems to identify a type of person. It appears to discriminate.

Of course it discriminates.
But while you seem to be reading it with the emphasis on "Some people, one can just get along", I read it with the emphasis on "Some people, one just can't get along".
I could also say, "There just are situations with people where there is no getting along."



Speculation because -- Say, you think a person is wonderful (or awful). But are they so? Are they so 24/7? Thing is, people have all sorts of traits, even mutually exclusive ones.

While analytically defining those traits and thus establishing the person's identity may seem useful, it is also a misleading speculation actively denying the reality that people change and that they aren't necessarily what or who one thinks they are.
-- One creates onself an identity, an image of the other person, and then expects them to be so. And if the other person does something that isn't in accord with that image, then some people say the other person is lying, pretending, a chameleon etc.


I would have thought it more to the point that people create and present an image of themselves.

Do you agree that they do? Do you admit that you do? [/quote]

Of course peo