I went back and checked all my posts in this thread. In not a single one did I express any indignance. — T Clark

Indignant: feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment.

Again, if you won't accept my own statement about my own experience of my own self, there's nothing more for us to talk about. — T Clark

Shall we test you by placing you on a desert island, alone? — baker

If I am on a desert island I may be frightened; concerned about being able to survive. If there is plenty of food, I doubt I will be bored, but I may well be lonely, which is a different matter altogether. If you posit that lack of people around you produces boredom rather than loneliness then it would seem that you see other people as commodities, providing nothing more than distraction and/ or entertainment, or in other words, diversion. It's a bit sad.

Boredom reflects, among other things, a change in our lifestyle, speaking in terms of humanity as a whole and not as individuals although it ultimately manifests at that scale.

For most of history, our way of life has been such that it was work, work, work (gathering, hunting, farming, etc.) the whole day and then with nightfall, deep, restful sleep. Lather, rinse, repeat.

With the advent of technology, most of the physical labor we used to engage in has bee offloaded onto machines. Suddenly we began to have time off from work. What do we do with this time? This is a question that few have an answer to as this state of affairs is relatively new in human history i.e. we haven't as yet figured out what to do with our spare time. Boredom (time we don't know how to use) sets in.

Pessimistically, time when one has nothing to do (ennui) is like an idling engine (on and that's it), and we all know an idle mind is a devil's workshop. We could, to that extent, blame much of humanity's ills on boredom during which we commune with the beast, and, as it turns out, do his bidding which comes in the form of diabolical ideas, merely suggested to us as passing remarks and small hints (Stephen Norton like).

So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not. — schopenhauer1

Why is suicide not a real option? This seems to be where any sense of being ‘stuck’ stems from. There’s a reason why you’ve excluded suicide, whether it’s purely reasonable, aesthetic or ethical (my guess is that for you, it’s ethical - a logical calculation of perceived affect or ‘harm’). FWIW, I don’t think there IS an illusion - the cycle CAN be broken - just not by you, intentionally, owing to your position. I have no issue with your position, of course - but it is a choice you make, and then blame others for having ‘started’ (for their own reasons) what you determine to be unconscionable, yet are unwilling to stop (for your own reasons).

What is one to do? Understand that there may be a broader perspective to this than an ethical one, which is relative to the human condition. Schopenhauer, like Kant, preceded Darwin’s revolutionary decentring of human existence in the temporal development of the universe. In this context, Schopenahuer’s essential striving-after may be far broader than any perpetual and seemingly pointless cycle of life over time.

The way I see it, there is a process to the universe in which we don’t so much serve a predestined purpose as ‘creatively intend’. The variability of this creative intention extends from asceticism (minimising both interaction and harm) not just to the suicide-bomber (maximising harm), but to what Laozi refers to as ‘the sage’: a balance between maximal interaction and minimal harm.

This additional dimensionality to Schopenhauer’s approach comes from recognising a qualitative relativity to both reasonable and ethical descriptions of the human condition. Schopenhauer’s philosophical ideas show no awareness of qualitative variability - this is particularly evident in his colour theory. With a father who supposedly committed suicide and a mother who seemed far from accepting of his personal qualities, I would say this is understandable.

Won how? — baker

Through meaningful engagement with the world - namely, the voluntary identification and pursuit of goals derived from one's highest ideals (and the intentional cultivation of such ideals), assuming you've had your basic physical needs met.

In order to externally test Schopenhauer's concept of boredom, we would need to interview people directly when they are in dire situations where they can do nothing but wait (such as when being held hostage during a bank robbery, or when they wait for the results of tests that could show they have a serious disease, or when they are tied to a hospital bed, mechanically ventilated, but still conscious). Such dire situations are relevant for this topic because we presume that in them, people will be left to themselves and will not be able to resort to their usual ways of keeping themselves busy or distracting themselves, or at least this ability will be significantly impaired.

Of course such experiments are unethical, so we don't do them, but instead have to rely on people's testimony after the fact, which is likely going to be biased, especially if the outcome was positive for the people.

Schopenhauer's idea is that left to themelves -- truly left to themselves -- people are bored. And then to relieve this fundamental boredom, they engage in all manner of activity, mental, verbal, or physical.

Through meaningful engagement with the world - namely, the voluntary identification and pursuit of goals derived from one's highest ideals (and the intentional cultivation of such ideals), assuming you've had your basic physical needs met. — Aaron R

Which still doesn't change that you started out as bored.

Fantasize? Worry maybe sometimes. I do read, fiction and non-fiction. I participate on the forum. I swim. I do my physical therapy exercises. — T Clark

In other words, keep yourself busy.

I don't think you understand how this works, at least works for me. The motivation to do things comes from inside me. I picture a spring bubbling up from under the ground. Just because I do stuff doesn't mean I'm keeping myself busy. Sometimes nothing bubbles up, so I just pay attention and wait. It doesn't usually take long.

Of course. It's like this for most people most of the time anyway. The difference is how deeply one analyzes one's state.

I guess you and schopenhauer1 lack imagination and empathy. You can't imagine other people experiencing things different from what you do. You don't seem to understand that others may feel differently.

Arthur Schopenahuer's, and Buddhism's, idea is that people can't stand doing nothing (actually doing nothing, not mentally, verbally, physically) and that when they find themselves in circumstances where they can't act in any way, they experience this as suffering.

It's why people hate to wait in line, hate to be ill and tied to a hospital bed, hate to be unable to fall asleep. Why prolonged sensory deprivation has an adverse effect. This is also why they hate many types of meditation because there is so little activity there.

I asked you before -- Can you really sit quietly, doing nothing -- not even fantasizing -- for hours, while being fully awake and alert?

The way I see it, there is a process to the universe in which we don’t so much serve a predestined purpose as
‘creatively intend’. — Possibility

Indeed, this is also called karma, and keeps the round of rebirth going.
All three of your examples (the ascetic, the suicide bomber, and the sage) creatively intend, hence they are bound to the round of rebirth, and thus suffering.

This additional dimensionality to Schopenhauer’s approach comes from recognising a qualitative relativity to both reasonable and ethical descriptions of the human condition.

Schopenhauer’s philosophical ideas show no awareness of qualitative variability

You're missing that the various experessions of this qualitative variability still all function on the same platform, namely that of craving.

Which still doesn't change that you started out as bored. — baker

I already addressed this.

In other words, keep yourself busy. — baker

You and @schopenhauer1 are really pitiful. You resent anyone who isn't as miserable as you are. You can't even imagine there are people satisfied with their lives.

You two are broken and you want, demand, that we all be as broken as you are.

Though I'm no Schopenhauer expert, he seemed to philosophize without reference to rational spirit. I hold this as key to Schopenhauer's idea of boredom. Where in the rational spirit there is no problem in the state of 'emptiness,' from an existential-material viewpoint there is no escape from the problems associated with it. Anyone from this existential-materialist point of view will inevitably come to the conclusion that the human condition is essentially corrupt by nature. There is still no serious counter-argument.

Schopenhauer's more cynical material is intelligible due to its lack of any reference to absolute idealism. This is where it can trigger a defense mechanism for many who claim 'there is no boredom,' because relatively speaking, there isn't. However, if you would see things from Schopenhauer's reference frame you would see a totally different picture. Essential to his reference frame is: the concept of individuality, the holistic validity of an intellectualizing will, and the absence of any factors of this universal intellectualizing will lying external or extraneous to the ideas and concepts of its consciousness.

'Absolute idealism' is a little oxymoronic, and also difficult to swallow; especially at the cusp of the industrial revolution more and more coming to rely on the cynicism of a boundless and unforgiving drive toward capital growth; the "cracking the omelette," so to speak that intrinsically counters this form of idealism. I think his point of view fits in well into this schema. Can a rationalizing spirit also experience pain and boredom without material activity? Of course, but in actuality it will oppose it. Because Schopenhauer affirmed his existence was amongst a will not to oppose, it was reasonable to have taken such a viewpoint for itself.

Indeed, this is also called karma, and keeps the round of rebirth going.
All three of your examples (the ascetic, the suicide bomber, and the sage) creatively intend, hence they are bound to the round of rebirth, and thus suffering. — baker

All instances of suffering are a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. Karma refers to the quality of our interconnection with the world - it isn’t bound by ethics or this ‘round of rebirth’. The idea of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma is a Western notion.

The suicide bomber intends to put an end to his limited awareness of suffering by removing that awareness, along with certain other aspects of the world, by active exclusion. It is a destructive, reductionist intending that unintentionally increases suffering in the world beyond the bomber’s awareness.

The ascetic is bound by an isolated focus on their ‘individual’ round of rebirth, intending to minimise any connection they appear to have with suffering in the world. Any creative intending or karma here is isolated, and cannot extend beyond the individual, isolated from the world.

The sage recognises an underlying universal flow towards interconnection, and creatively intends to minimise suffering by maximising awareness, connection and collaboration. This is karma at work - it is not bound to rebirth, but rather highlights its limitations and extends beyond, and therefore beyond suffering.

You're missing that the various experessions of this qualitative variability still all function on the same platform, namely that of craving. — baker

No, they don’t - that’s only because you assume all forms of expression are a craving, a dissatisfaction with the world. But have you considered that many expressions of qualitative variability in the human condition don’t reach your attention, specifically because they are not an expression of craving, or not requiring your interaction? Are we aware of human expressions of inclusive collaboration with the world, or are we attune only to suffering?

What attracts our attention is usually tied to our perceived potential - our capacity to interact intentionally with the world. But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation), we are able to explore a more complete awareness of reality, inclusive of what has no need of our potential to interact. I’m not saying this is an easy state to reach, and there is certainly plenty on our radar to pull our attention back to what society says we ‘should’ be striving for. But both Buddhism and Taoism encourage an intentional stillness or emptiness that enables us to embody the quality and logic of reality, without striving. In this state, we relate to the possibility for energy to flow freely, the possibility of no suffering - and with this develop an awareness of our own creative capacity to intentionally minimise suffering in the way we connect and collaborate. The more we can embody this ‘stillness’, the more we realise that there is nothing we need to be striving-for in any moment in time - only allowing for a free flow of possible energy.

So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not. — schopenhauer1

Schopenhauer's view is gloomy, indeed.
No one has a really good solution to this, only good suggestions. And funny thing is, after we're told by Schopenhauer, we turn to other philosophers for a silver lining. A mind can do wonders without altering our surrounding. Just the shift in mind. Although a change in surrounding can temporarily alleviate it. That's why we're all escapist in one form or another. Some bury themselves in art and music, others in paid work, and still other in hobbies.

Schopenhauer's view is gloomy, indeed.
No one has a really good solution to this, only good suggestions. And funny thing is, after we're told by Schopenhauer, we turn to other philosophers for a silver lining. A mind can do wonders without altering our surrounding. Just the shift in mind. Although a change in surrounding can temporarily alleviate it. That's why we're all escapist in one form or another. Some bury themselves in art and music, others in paid work, and still other in hobbies. — L'éléphant

Excellent points! :up:

Loneliness is simply a specific kind of boredom. It is longing for social connection. But why is there this longing? Schopenhauer would posit a striving-after that has no end. Just more proof of his point that if BEING was something absolutely POSITIVE in itself, we would want for NOTHING, because BEING would be its own satisfaction. The lack at the heart of motivations and "getting caught up in the drama and affairs of this or that person, story, hobby, value".

What attracts our attention is usually tied to our perceived potential - our capacity to interact intentionally with the world. But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation), we are able to explore a more complete awareness of reality, inclusive of what has no need of our potential to interact. I’m not saying this is an easy state to reach, and there is certainly plenty on our radar to pull our attention back to what society says we ‘should’ be striving for. But both Buddhism and Taoism encourage an intentional stillness or emptiness that enables us to embody the quality and logic of reality, without striving. In this state, we relate to the possibility for energy to flow freely, the possibility of no suffering - and with this develop an awareness of our own creative capacity to intentionally minimise suffering in the way we connect and collaborate. The more we can embody this ‘stillness’, the more we realise that there is nothing we need to be striving-for in any moment in time - only allowing for a free flow of possible energy. — Possibility

I think it is telling that we have to "get" to some state by meditative techniques in the FIRST PLACE. Again, this is not countering anything Schopenhauer had said with my original OP quote, especially the part in bold. That is to say: Just more proof of his point that if BEING was something absolutely POSITIVE in itself, we would want for NOTHING, because BEING would be its own satisfaction. The lack at the heart of motivations and "getting caught up in the drama and affairs of this or that person, story, hobby, value".

I think it is telling that we have to "get" to some state by meditative techniques in the FIRST PLACE. Again, this is not countering anything Schopenhauer had said with my original OP quote, especially the part in bold. That is to say: Just more proof of his point that if BEING was something absolutely POSITIVE in itself, we would want for NOTHING, because BEING would be its own satisfaction. The lack at the heart of motivations and "getting caught up in the drama and affairs of this or that person, story, hobby, value". — schopenhauer1

Well, no, we don’t have to meditate, as such - it’s simply a case of accepting a state of ‘boredom’ instead of feeling like we have to fight against it or avoid it. My own children learned very quickly not to complain of being ‘bored’ as if it were a negative state: I gave them chores. But I don’t think boredom is necessarily positive, either. What I aimed to teach my children was that boredom was simply a neutral state of BEING. I think it’s important to recognise this, and to ask ourselves why we feel or think we need to strive against it.

The reality is that energy flows through everything, so even in this neutral state of BEING there is a relative awareness of affect in potentiality - the valence and arousal of attention and effort - and with it our capacity to choose between awareness or ignorance, connection or isolation, and collaboration or exclusion (ie. will). There’s a lot of variable potentiality in simply BEING. It’s no surprise that some of us would describe it as more of a (determinately) positive condition, and others an unavoidably negative condition in which cognition in service of the will condemns us to a life of ceaseless striving.

In relation to Schopenhauer’s philosophy, then, it is from this neutral state of BEING that we choose to embody either will or representation in relation to the world. In the world as will, my faculty of pure reason is limited in its capacity to interact by my current condition of affect and value perception. In the world as representation, I have no sense of this limited capacity to interact, subjecting any embodiment of will to unpredictable failure - and with that, to suffering.

I could choose to actively or passively ignore, isolate or exclude either aspects of the world as representation (accepting a limitation of reason in service of the will), or aspects of the world as will (idealism, solipsism, etc).

From this neutral state of BEING, however, I could also choose, insofar as I am capable, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, recognising that this perceived capacity is limited at any one time (and subject to suffering) by an ongoing condition of affect and value perception, but that such capacity expands as I increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world from a genuine sense of compassion, of ‘suffering with’ - and in doing so predictably reduces further instances of suffering, for myself as well as others. It is this striving, insofar as it is a choice determined from a neutral state, that seems a reasonable use of my limited attention and effort, as a POSITIVE net gain across a fleeting and fragile state of BEING. It’s a small gain, but it’s better than asceticism, by my account.

This additional dimensionality to Schopenhauer’s approach comes from recognising a qualitative relativity to both reasonable and ethical descriptions of the human condition. Schopenhauer’s philosophical ideas show no awareness of qualitative variability - this is particularly evident in his colour theory. With a father who supposedly committed suicide and a mother who seemed far from accepting of his personal qualities, I would say this is understandable. — Possibility

So how come that you have this awareness of qualitative variability, while Arthur Schopenhauer didn't have it?

Were you born with it?
Or did you learn it?

You and schopenhauer1 are really pitiful. You resent anyone who isn't as miserable as you are. You can't even imagine there are people satisfied with their lives.

You two are broken and you want, demand, that we all be as broken as you are. — T Clark

So people who are satisfied with their lives say such things to others as you do here to us?
Interesting this, this "satisfaction with life" ...

If we were in a hand-to-mouth survival situation, that is all we would be consumed with...the means to putting food in our mouth, getting hydrated, and finding comfortable shelter from the elements. — schopenhauer1

That's simply not true. We could take some fruit off a tree and start making paint to color dead tree trunks.

So people who are satisfied with their lives say such things to others as you do here to us? — baker

Apparently.

You and ShowpanhourI called me a liar. Fekyez both.

This additional dimensionality to Schopenhauer’s approach comes from recognising a qualitative relativity to both reasonable and ethical descriptions of the human condition. Schopenhauer’s philosophical ideas show no awareness of qualitative variability - this is particularly evident in his colour theory. With a father who supposedly committed suicide and a mother who seemed far from accepting of his personal qualities, I would say this is understandable.
— Possibility

So how come that you have this awareness of qualitative variability, while Arthur Schopenhauer didn't have it?

Were you born with it?
Or did you learn it? — baker

Maybe because he ignores or isolates it - partly as a coping mechanism, partly in favour of rationality. That’s speculation, though. I wouldn’t say that he didn’t have that capacity for awareness (I didn’t meet him in person, but I would suggest that he did to some extent), only that he didn’t recognise it or show it in his philosophical writing.

Boredom is a snapshot of immortality. It appears that we don't really wanna drink from the pool of eternal youth life even if we should find it! Question though, is boredom better than death or vice versa? I'm sure Sisyphus, if he were, somehow, incapable of experiencing the physical stress of rolling his precious boulder up the fabled hill, would've been, well, bored...to...death!

From this neutral state of BEING, however, I could also choose, insofar as I am capable, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, recognising that this perceived capacity is limited at any one time (and subject to suffering) by an ongoing condition of affect and value perception, but that such capacity expands as I increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world from a genuine sense of compassion, of ‘suffering with’ - and in doing so predictably reduces further instances of suffering, for myself as well as others. It is this striving, insofar as it is a choice determined from a neutral state, that seems a reasonable use of my limited attention and effort, as a POSITIVE net gain across a fleeting and fragile state of BEING. It’s a small gain, but it’s better than asceticism, by my account. — Possibility

More existential gaslighting. YOU'RE the problem because YOU were born. It's YOUR choice. [But it wasn't].. So all the "You were created because of X, and now you must do Y because I know the truth about the world".. [Eh no].

An’ though the rules of the road have been lodged
It’s only people’s games that you got to dodge
And it’s alright, Ma, I can make it
...

Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to


....
My eyes collide head-on with stuffed
Graveyards, false gods, I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough
what else can you show me?



And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
But it’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only — Dylan

Getting caught up in someone else's agenda is somehow "adult" and "connection", and "meaningful". The agenda of subsisting at all. The agenda of the survival. The agenda of the corporation. The agenda of pursuits of entertainment. If you wrap it up in a nice bow of communal dependency, it makes it look not forced..

"You see, your following the agenda will fulfill you because you will be connecting, collaborating, and being more aware. I mean, what else choice do you have? Suicide? Griping? Being a Pessimist? [maniacal laugh]."

Fuck all the established agendas and trying to make life's problem a personal problem, mam.

You and schopenhauer1 are really pitiful. You 1. resent anyone who isn't as miserable as you are. You can't even imagine there are people satisfied with their lives.

You two are broken and you 2. want, 3. demand, that we all be as broken as you are. — T Clark

You and ShowpanhourI 4. called me a liar. Fekyez both. — T Clark

Substantiate your accusations. Copy paste evidence from out post for all four items.

Fuck all the established agendas and trying to make life's problem a personal problem, mam. — schopenhauer1

It's how capitalism works: Get the people to focus on their private lives, and get them to believe that every failure, every problem in their lives is their own fault. This way, they will be avid consumers, they will have little insight into their own needs, and they will have little regard for others (other people, other beings, the planet). While those higher up make a lot of money and the planet turns into hell.

The more we can embody this ‘stillness’, the more we realise that there is nothing we need to be striving-for in any moment in time - only allowing for a free flow of possible energy. — Possibility

Bhava tanha.

All instances of suffering are a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. Karma refers to the quality of our interconnection with the world - it isn’t bound by ethics or this ‘round of rebirth’. The idea of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma is a Western notion.

The suicide bomber intends to put an end to his limited awareness of suffering by removing that awareness, along with certain other aspects of the world, by active exclusion. It is a destructive, reductionist intending that unintentionally increases suffering in the world beyond the bomber’s awareness.

The ascetic is bound by an isolated focus on their ‘individual’ round of rebirth, intending to minimise any connection they appear to have with suffering in the world. Any creative intending or karma here is isolated, and cannot extend beyond the individual, isolated from the world.

The sage recognises an underlying universal flow towards interconnection, and creatively intends to minimise suffering by maximising awareness, connection and collaboration. This is karma at work - it is not bound to rebirth, but rather highlights its limitations and extends beyond, and therefore beyond suffering. — Possibility

This is New Age stuff. I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole.

More existential gaslighting. YOU'RE the problem because YOU were born. It's YOUR choice. [But it wasn't].. So all the "You were created because of X, and now you must do Y because I know the truth about the world".. [Eh no]. — schopenhauer1

"You see, your following the agenda will fulfill you because you will be connecting, collaborating, and being more aware. I mean, what else choice do you have? Suicide? Griping? Being a Pessimist? [maniacal laugh]." — schopenhauer1

I don’t know where you got all of that from - it wasn’t from anything I wrote here. Your own assumptions, perhaps?

No, it wasn’t your choice to be born. No, it isn’t the case that ‘you must’ do anything. Yes, you do have alternative choices to awareness, connection and collaboration: you can always choose ignorance, isolation or exclusion - it’s easy enough to do, but always increases suffering. Yes, I do consider suicide or pessimism to be legitimate choices. I wouldn’t personally make either of those choices at this stage, but I would never say never.

I don’t think BEING is supposed to be about survival, subsistence or incorporation at all. That’s the language of consolidation: of an ‘individual’ whose perceived ego appears to be forced into a life they wouldn’t choose for themselves. There’s a sense of attachment to self, here. Bhava Tanha - a craving to be something - comes from a misunderstanding of eternalism/permanence.

This is New Age stuff. I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole. — baker

Ignore, isolate, exclude...