Nice! It's quite sad that he seems to have neglected the full breadth and depth of (ancient) Indian philosophy, of Indian origin though he was. — Agent Smith

I must have missed your post. But now that i have seen it, every post after the 3rd one is mine. Goodbye friend.

After 2.5 hours of my last post on this thread , one of the moderators pinged me on said thread, attempting to make the exchange look different than what it was. Since the post was also closed at the same time i posted a response on the "shoutbox", which was immediately deleted.

Right around the same time i received 2 private messages from another moderator as well as the one in question. One is a "formal warning", and the other message is a threat to ban.

For any reader:I won't be participating in this forum anymore, nor will be responding to any posts that i have created or have participated in. Consider me already banned.Thank you.

I'll try. — Tate

Good. Because if it were another forum you would be gone by now, and would need to re-enter using yet another alias.

It occurs to me that this issue is mostly about non-philosophical discussions. If I just stay away from those, I probably won't see as much infantile behavior from mods or members. — Tate

Since you been here in the forum you have been butting heads with the mods and some members. Your grievances seem to flow from your previous incarnations. You have started many threads and posts which focus on what you think is going on in the forum..And the worse part is, you are also doing these behind the cover of other people's back, using any pretext to shoot. See if you can stay away from this kind of infantile behavior.

Thank you kind sir.

:smile:

Like i said, don't expect me to play your games. I will slap you just as easy as i would slap that coward.

I remember you were the only one that had welcomed me when i initially joined and at that time i wasn't sure what to make of it. But having read some of your posts, felt like saying hello.

Oh Hey! I was actually thinking of saying hello to you today. How you feelin'?

@Baden

Try what? Mention you in a comment that's relevant to a complaint that you brought up? I'm afraid that's part and parcel of being a member here. — Baden

I have never "brought up any compliant" to you or to any of the moderators even though you have asked me both here, and in private messages, to do so. In the above posts you can be seen doing the same thing, asking for names and urging me to get into the matters, which i ended by telling you, which is a fact, that you are responding to a message that wasn't directed at you, and giving explanations that are unsought.

That wasn't a threat. It was a suggestion, so that you don't look silly, trying to continuously stir the pot, yet failing.

But feel free to go ahead with the ban if you feel it is needed.

@Baden

It might be better for you not to try that again. Thank you.

Is there a reason why you have pinged me again?

You're giving an unsought response. If i wanted to ask for clarification i would have done so a while back.

Good to see one you're doing well.

I guess one can essentially ask,

Where are your concerns and sensibilities when it comes to others? Ever speak up for others? Or do your sensibilities surface only when it concerns you?

And this sort of thing is not okay with me, sorry. In a thread elsewhere on the forum, I might even flag it.

I'm going back to thinking about philosophy now. — Srap Tasmaner

Ha! Sir, your being ok or not ok doesn't change facts.You have the capacity to face facts, don't you? And yes, you should go back to philosophy, but not the kind that is limited only to words, but the kind that translates into conduct, you see.

Also, next time you wish to respond to a post, respond to it in totto, in context, not cut and paste what you agree or disagree with. Doing so will show a petty mind/heart that is incapable of looking at anything beyond its lip-serviced philosophy. Glad we had this chat.

Perhaps you know I've never commented on site moderation and maybe never will. In spite of the possibility that you may be one of the moderators (during your stint) responsible for deleting my threads, and several have been deleted in the past months, i like what you have said in your post above. Hence this response.

In particular I like your take on "civility" and your mentioning institutionalized bullying. But I'm curious, perhaps in an amused sort of rhetorical way, how far do our indignations and appeals go? Do we speak up for others? Does it ever translate into our conduct? Or do they forever remain as something that comes up when it affects us personally? I think this may even be a serious philosophical question all of us can ask ourselves.

When i initially joined the site, oh about a year and few months ago, i went through numerous incidents wherein "veteran" members of this site went on a trolling spree, trolling me on all my threads. The attempts were "Nasty", would be putting it mildly. It was deliberate and almost clockwork. Of course, all this was supported by the silence of the mods and perhaps some behind the screen chuckles. Then of course there seemed to be the secret handshakes of other veteran members, and long story short, it was a group effort.

Now, having been through all that, and having established these trolls to be the spineless cowards that they are, one questions, how can you make appeals to civility when this civility never translates into our conduct. In partuclar, how can such appeals be made to spineless cowards, that think, and advocate, "insult, and diatribe" as normal, while labeling such actions as part of "democracy"? Ha. Says a lot there, doesn't it. In any case, just a note to say appreciated the post.

You also go to war because there is money to be made in war. Or you want to either expand or protect your borders. Or you use war as a diversion from what is going inside your country.There are no notions of righteousness or holy war that is free from the aforementioned defects. Righteousness is not a group phenomenon. It is an individual path for the righteous, to walk "alone". Course one needs a backbone for that sort of thing.

That is expected. Which is what i had suggested in the beginning, allowing you a chance to quit. But you tried a few swings and ended up where you are.

My point would be that even in the face of a widely unpopular and unjustified war, many families still sent their sons to war primarily because of this flawed calculation of suffering and value - and it isn't an accident that evangelical conservatives broadly supported the Iraq war, despite the evidence - their entire doctrine is based around this flawed notion of suffering and value. They are the easiest to sway with an argument of sacrifice.

In a broader, more anthropological mindset, this pattern of propitiation is commonly repeated - the idea that sacrifices must be made to bring good fortune. In other words, a grieving mother whose son is sacrificed on the altar would have to have a reason to allow her son to die. Telling a grieving Mother that one death saves many people, only then she will 'allow' her son to die, because she believes that her son's death is justified. This is the tragedy of war! It is why veterans are haunted by the question of what it all meant, what it all added up to, for the amount of suffering occurring in a war never adds up to an equivalent amount of value. Despite this, we are generationally convinced that we need to fight and kill each other to produce value - in reality the consensus is that we hate war, we don't want to fight in wars, and that wars are almost never worth fighting.

How can you square the opposing facts; that on the one hand we all recognize that war is terrible and that it is primarily old men sending young men to die, and yet still fall for the same old tricks over and over again? I claim it is at least partly because we are easily led astray by this repeated idea of value being earned through suffering. — 64bithuman

Nonsense.

The facts are, you make "sacrifices" for war not because you see "value in suffering" or it is a means for "good fortune", but because you are conditioned to nationalism. The older war mongers use this sentiment to profit from your conditioning.

Note: Even though the quoted post is directed at someone else i have seen it now and felt it necessary to call out the nonsense in the post, for purposes of better deliberation by any interested parties.

On second thoughts, my mistake. The dictum has been advocated by many 'deep thinkers'. Christians don't have a copyright on it.

Didn't some war (external and internal) free men (and perhaps women) used to say : love thy neighbor? Whatever happened to that dictum? We need some christian friends on this thread.

@64bithuman

On second thoughts, i may have pushed it a bit when i said "am i the only one laughing here", and for that i ask (ignoring all your ad-hominems) you pardon me. But the rest are clearly factual and i stand by them. Just as i stand by my response to your ad-.hominems.

I think you over reacted by reading it wrong. Like how you read 'simple" as "stupid". Maybe you were a bit mad and thus blind, eh. Its ok. Also, giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you mentioned a welcome, welcome to the forum! ;-)

Like i said before, it might be healthier for you to continue with others.

If you really want to continue with me then start by bracing your backbone and giving an honest answer to the question i had asked you.

I'm totally fine if you can't come up with that honesty. Let's call it a day.

As stupid as a nickel — 64bithuman

Read again. Underneath is what was said.

I mean, his post is as simple as a nickel. There is no need to value it at $100. That would be an incorrect value. — skyblack

brute force your way to victory — 64bithuman

No sir, In the highly unlikely event it may be be used, which is almost never, it will only be used against equals.. You aren't my equal. The question of victory and loss only comes to petty minds/hearts lacking backbone. The thought never crosses my mind, but clearly it does, in your case.

.

I can't make heads or tails out of most of the endless "old man yells at cloud" that you're saying — 64bithuman

So far i asked you a simple question. That is to confirm "Am i stating your position correctly?". Which you evaded and yes, that says a lot about you.

other than the below-the-belt insults — 64bithuman

That distinction belongs to you. Your very first attempt was:

I'm sorry that your worldview does not accommodate answers that are non-binary, good sir — 64bithuman

Or perhaps are addicted to the rush of hate-posting. A known phenomenon that I would urge you to explore — 64bithuman

You are projecting. Grabing any straw in order to vilify.

You seem befuddled by my assertion that suffering both has meaning and has no meaning. It's not a binary, both are true. It's possible that sometimes, suffering produces meaning, and sometimes it does not. Only my point would be that we often seem to make the assumption that suffering has meaning more often than the assumption that it has no meaning — 64bithuman

You're arguing a straw man. Addressing an irrelevant issue. An issue that hasn't even been discussed. We never went that far because you folded way prior to even reaching that point, by evading a clear and direct question.

For example, you yourself once wrote in a quite long, complicated, and awfully essay-like post — 64bithuman

Couple of days in the forum and you have already read my year old posts? Indeed, it does tell a lot about your "new account".

and yet I do not see any facts. — 64bithuman

My post is not in question here, yours is. But if you wish to question it i'll be happy to oblige you, at my covininece.

It would seem that you don't follow the rules that you seek to enforce. — 64bithuman

I am not an enforcer in this forum. That job is for the central committee. Get your facts straight. Don't just make up straws. It is pathetic.

.

I propose no antidote to this so-called 'problem of mankind' (which I never frame as a problem of mankind, that would be an oversimplification) - I don't understand where you are pulling this 'positive thinking' thing from. I see no antidote for there is no antidote and we wouldn't want one if we had one. We have no choice but to create meaning from suffering like one makes shapes from clouds. — 64bithuman

Underneath is your own words wherein you have indicated your antidote
:

since it's not true that suffering is the only way to create meaning in your life. For example, we can be benefactors of sheer good fortune without directly 'earning it' with suffering. Good fortune can also spark meaning — 64bithuman

Now I would appreciate it if you respond you avoid the ad-hominem attack as they do nothing to prove your point and make you look like a fool. — 64bithuman

That is rich coming from you, after your long winded series of ad-hominems.

But you know what establishes you as a fool ( And i am simply reiterating your words)? The fact that you felt the need to respond to a post that wasn't even directed at you, and your rather weak -pathetic attempts to paint a picture of me that isn't backed by evidence.

I don’t see much of an argument being presented nor a solid position. — I like sushi

Right. There is none.

A casual overview Op's posts demonstrate one of two things or possibly all two (possibly more if looked deeper).1- First, op could be genuinely mistaken his post is complicated and needs minute attention. While truth of the matter is it is nothing but a medley of flaky incoherent thoughts and so simple to understand that any backwoods caveman can get it. Or perhaps op is deluded with his self-importance, which s undersatandable, many are. 2- This is a bait post created by a bait account to get as many responses as possible to keep the thread/forum busy.In which case the obscuration and the attempts at evasion is deliberate. But let's get to the points:

If you read the latest installment of op's clarification, it is still the same points i was asking him to confirm earlier. These are:

1-Mankind erroneously believes 'suffering can and will lead to good fortune'. Note he isn't talking about a fringe demographics. In fact he is asserting it's a mainstream/majority phenomenon.

2- He is objecting to the above phenomenon by saying it is incorrect and that suffering has no value.

3- His proposed antidote to this alleged problem of mankind is to seek some form of value in positive thinking.

Am i the only person laughing here? I mean, his post is as simple as a nickel. There is no need to value it at $100. That would be an incorrect value.

so some of your points in the OP are empty for me. — I like sushi

Its all empty. There are no points. Points begin with facts, not essayed obscurations. For example one may start with, is suffering a fact? Is the search of meaning a fact? What is the nature of both? And so on.....

It seems an inquiry starts with facts and the usage of reason, not half baked reactive silly sentiments.

But honesty, as Billy Joel once said, is such a lonely word. — 64bithuman

Right, it seems "just a word" for you.

But now that we are getting into the nitty gritty of the questioner behind the op, my recommendation would be to resume your focus on your OP rather than your present pursuit. It may simply be a healthier choice, befitting the circumstances.

Sir, the question of any world view hasn't even arose. We are still dealing with honesty.

That's what i thought.

Aside from your essayed obscuration there are really only 2 positions, one i have already mentioned, which is what you have been saying, or its opposite which will be a recant of what you have been saying. And that will be ,

"Mankind does not have said belief and i have no objection. I am simply playin' "

Cool. Thank you Mr. 64bithuman. That be all.

BTW you don't have to be defensive...at least not with me. I'm not going to tear you apart unless it is indicated you want me to. So just be honest and state your position if you wish to have a dialogue. If not, that's great too.

ot exactly, it's a little complicated and hard to reduce to short sentences. — 64bithuman

The gist or crux is sometimes a short sentence.

In the fast few posts you have introduced a new word "sacrifice". It might be better if you stuck to the original word "suffering". So again, you're saying mankind believes 'suffering can and will lead to good fortune'. And your objection is, that belief is incorrect, and that there are other ways to facilitate good fortune such as positive thinking. Is that it?

At this stage i'm not asking you to clarify what is "right" or "wrong". I'm simply stating your position. Am i stating your position correctly? Unless you want to recant your beliefs...which is fine with me.

Ok, so you reworded your op.

Sounds like essentially you're saying mankind believes 'suffering can and will lead to good fortune'. And your objection is, that belief is incorrect, and that there are other ways to facilitate good fortune such as positive thinking. Is that it?

Since you have Sterling Hayden's picture on your profile, i guess that necessitates a response. What exactly are you wanting to discuss in OP? If you can water it down a bit for the intellectually challenged that will be great.

You make your own karma". For the most part, seems like the current concept of karma is as a system of reward and punishment wherein "good deeds" are rewarded and "bad deeds" are punished. In conjunction with reincarnation, individuals ultimately get "what they deserve". Even if it takes many lifetimes. As with the Christian "trinity", I've yet to come across an explanation of karma's workings that holds water.

That said, from what I gather the original concept of karma was stated in the following:
Now as a man is like this or like that,
according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be:
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad.
He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds.
And here they say that a person consists of desires.
And as is his desire, so is his will;
and as is his will, so is his deed;
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
---- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6

Now we're getting into something…

Essentially the concept is that the unconscious mind is conditioned by ones thoughts and actions. And, most importantly, it can be reconditioned. Ultimately ones unconscious mind is the result of self-conditioning.

As an example, desire for salt or sugar works this way. Some years ago I had pretty much cut out salty foods from my diet. About six month later, my employer provided box lunches that included a bag of potato chips since we were working through. As I'd always loved potato chips, even though it wasn't in my diet, I figured I had the bag, might as well eat them. Upon placing a single chip in my mouth, I wanted to spit it out. It was revolting. Left the rest uneaten. It was really surprising. Prior to this, I'd always really liked salty foods - even often craved them. Chips. Salted nuts. Whatever. Bring them on. I still have no desire for them. A friend of mine said that she had had a similar experience with sugar.

Insofar as I can tell, pretty much all unconscious desires and behaviors work this way.
Seems like most believe their unconscious mind to be largely, if not completely, static. It isn't. "You make your own karma".

Thoughts?

As an aside, one should note the wide gulf between the underlying concepts of the original and the current and ponder the impetus for such a dramatic corruption. A similar wide gulf can be seen between the gospel preached by Jesus during his ministry and the "gospel" believed by the vast majority of Christians. — ThinkOfOne

The above OP/quote is for the record. To prevent any mysterious changes to it.

Got a somewhat reliable link/citation to the BU 4.4.5-6? Or are you foollin' this backwoods kid with that translation?

Great artists and great writers may be creators, but we are not, we are mere spectators.

We may read vast numbers of books, may listen to magnificent music, look at works of art, but we never directly experience the sublime; our experience is always through a poem, through a picture, through a personality.

To sing we must have a song in our hearts; but having lost the song, we pursue the song of another, or the singer. Thus without an intermediary we feel/are lost. Out of our failures & incapacities are born those that deny even the existence of any such song.

Course you can't weasel your way to it. Therefore weasels usually give up.

So,

if one dies while still living, maybe they will finally know what it is to be Alive. Perhaps they will be in a better position of having a "view" on the age old question, "if there is such a thing as immortality?".

That's what I'm saying. The only reason people IMO live is survival instinct because to me death just makes more logical sense. Never having to do good things, or worry about bad things, it all ends. So why put it off?

I feel like everything used to justify the will to keep going is more just our survival instinct trying to rationalize things. — Darkneos

No. That's not what you were/are saying.

You seem to be concerned about "checking out", which is about biological death.

That's not what i have been looking into.

If one has followed the inquiry thus far and is seeing the true context of death as simplyan ending, which it is, which you wish to postpone for as long as you can since you lack a backbone,

then one puts a reasonable question, if i know there is biological death always lurking around the corner and all your BS is gonna leave you with nothing but sh## in your hands, then why doesn't the human end (psychological death) its weasel-ly-ness. Right.

To end it now! Because that's what biological death will do/does. You won't have a chance to negotiate/weasel out of, as much as want to. So the question then becomes, what is it to die. For example, to all your fears, to your prejudices, to your nonsense.

To continue from previous:

So, death, it seems, in its correct context, is an ending. An ending to your fears, your pettiness, your jealousies, your beseeching, your pretenses your games, your neuroticism....ya know , don't you? After all these, and more, is what you call living. This "ending" has nothing to do with your biological continuity or dis-continuity. Clearly.

You can't have a "discussion" with death! Ha