How would I know who I am without my personal pain and suffering? What would give my life purpose and meaning? What would hold me separate from God?

Thanks for the explanation of being free. I think I will pursue knowledge.

This is interesting and essential if one is interested in the history of thoughts about existence and a god.

Getting back to you about the books you listed. I was able to read some of "Information and the Nature of Reality" this morning. I think I have a book about quantum physics that might help me understand the concepts. My mind is kind of stuck back in the day of Newton. When trying to understand quantum physics, it is quickly overwhelmed, but it is clear to me that we must upgrade our thinking. :lol: I have to laugh at myself. My brain doesn't work as well as I would like. My old legs sure are not putting in me in a marathon.

But I will keep working on improvement, just in case the Egyptians were right about the trinity of our being.

Whether one's ideas about reality are 'delusions' or not is culture dependent. The standard idea of delusion is if one's ideas are not shared by others. For example, if someone believes oneself to be a Messiah it is usually thought to be delusional. Generally, those with unusual beliefs are regarded as eccentric, or referred to a psychiatrist.

Even within psychiatry, mental health professionals ideas vary, ranging from fundamentalists to hardcore atheists. This affects the way the professionals interpret the ideas of psychosis and delusions. Nevertheless, one common ground is thinkers about the impact of the ideas. If a person is seen as a risk to oneself or others there is more concern about delusional beliefs.

Of course, it is possible for people in power or an entire nation to be delusional, in a 'harmful' way. Politics involves ideas about reality, ranging from leaders fighting for religious beliefs to Marxism based on dialectical materialism. — Jack Cummins

That could lead to an unpleasant discussion.:lol: I have a few words to say about delusion and political problems, but that would not be philosophical. However, AI's explanation of "Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Political Delusion" is perfect. We should not base our decisions on popular opinions but on truth. That is where freedom of the press and the media comes in. Our journalists were supposed to keep us well informed, and many took this very seriously. But lately, the media has catered to popular interest. Resulting mass delusion.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Nearing and Helen Knothe, a lifelong vegetarian, lived together in Winhall in rural Vermont, where they had purchased a large forest tract for $2200 and a moderate-sized farm for $2500.

Scott Nearing, an economics professor who at 45 had made himself unemployable because of his socialist-pacifist views. https://www.google.com/search?q=scott+nearing+vermont+house&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=Scott+Nearing+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgHEAAYFhgeMgoIABBFGBYYHhg5MgcIARAuGIAEMgcIAhAAGIAEMgcIAxAAGIAEMgcIBBAAGIAEMgcIBRAAGIAEMgcIBhAAGIAEMggIBxAAGBYYHjIICAgQABgWGB7SAQs4NTg1NzBqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think many who could afford a farm turned to farming during the Great Depression. My grandparents owned a chicken farm, so they ate well but.... The story goes that they could not sell the chickens, so my grandfather gave them away. That made my grandmother furious, and they divorced. I thought the divorce rate increased because of the Great Depression, but AI said the divorce rate decreased until the economy started to improve. Then the divorce rate increased.

My grandmother was a teacher, and divorced women could not get teaching jobs in the city so she and her two children had to stay in a rural area until the rules for teachers changed.

Followup question: are we still a nation anymore? We all know the state is alive and kicking, but when's the last time somebody bothered to check on her brother? Civic nationalism (the US' chosen type of unifying ideology) is much more intellectually demanding than ethnic nationalism, which threatens to divide pluralist nations into factions. Enlightenment ideals like you mentioned, an emphasis on individual liberty, personal responsibility, active citizenship and pride in duty, rule of law, diversity of opinions, backgrounds, and cultures, and reverence of constitutional foundations all seem to be core tenets of our national identity. It's fundamental for liberal democracies to remain united behind these or adjacent ideals so that solidarity can prevail even in times of crisis or division. Without them, the only common denominators would geography and a prevailing political authority, while sub-national factions jockey for political dominance without much restraint — finarfin

Wow! I love :heart: what you said! I don't know which nation you are talking about, but the US is in big trouble! The Roosevelts had a different set of values than some presidents. And we may want to pay attention to this difference.

I hold my hands at this moment, a book titled "Poverty and Riches" by Scott Nearing, Ph.D. published in 1916. It is a horror story about the exploitation of the poor, including children. This book seems to say we should take Germany's side in the First World War because it did far more for its citizens than England did for its poor and powerless class.

Here is the reasoning for that.. under the Act of 1831...

children of nine could be called upon to work sixty-nine hours a week. "The hours of black slaves' labor in our colonies were at that very time carefully limited by law (Orders in Council, November 2, 1831) to nine per day for adults, and six for young persons and children, while night work was simply prohibited". Not until 1847 was a ten-hour day for women and children secured.

6. Laisez-Faire Justified
The debate in Parliament over the early factory acts sounds weird and uncanny in twentieth-century ears. The Unspeakable working and living conditions of the industrial population were explained and justified in the name of liberty and individual freedom.

The revolting conditions surrounding the lives of the working population were more than offest, in the eyes of English statemen, by the cheapness of the product, the profits of the industries to the manufacturers, and the splendid trade balances that were growing in favor of England.

This is what the Roosevelts were looking at when they determined to use the federal government to take better care of the working class. Heaven only knows how many people would have starved to death if Franklin Roosevelt had not used the power of government to create jobs that were desperately needed.

I am trying to hold this examination of economic crashes and capitalism to a question of morality. Socrates said, when people are exploited, sooner or later, they become a problem to those who exploit them. The Enlightenment was a belief that humanity can do better.

Plagiarizing someone else's writing is wrong. I grew up with that rule and have strong feelings about the wrong. However, as I sit out here all alone with my thoughts, it is wonderful to find I am not totally alone, but AI knows what I am talking about and more! Unlike some replies, AI leads me to learning more about the subject I am writing about. It's a wonderful experience for me.

I don't always agree with Google AI, and that is annoying. How dare they say something that is wrong. I don't want people believing something that is wrong. I don't think AI has emotional intelligence and that can be a threat. Some of us do not want to be ruled by a king, nor AI.

I would really appreciate any corrections to what I am saying about GD, because I was not there. I think for some of us where I live, the recession was like the GD. I risked my life hitchhiking and selling plasma to get through my generation's hard times. I experienced black humor, where the possibility of dying was funny. But I did not live through the GD so I may hold wrong notions about it.

That would not be very useful.

Thanks, I looked for the lounge but couldn't find it. Too much on my mind all at once, shuts my brain down.

I am most concerned about what the people in charge of the forum want. Using AI would make developing a thread by myself much easier. But my next move might be quoting from a book titled "Poverty and Riches" and published around the First World War about why Germany had healthier citizens than Britain, and questioning if taking the British side was the right thing. Capitalism that exploits people, may not be moral, and Socrates said sooner or later those people who are exploited will become a problem to those who exploit them.

Thank you. I will follow the Hippie path. The more scientific one causes my brain to shut down.

One of my favorite philosophers is James Williams, and he was good with Holisticism. He is also a hard read for me, but says things my brain really likes. He was an education authority, and education is a subject I am passionate about.

I checked my favorite second-hand book dealer, and the book The Sapient Cosmos by James B. Glattfelder is more than I usually pay. I will have to think about it. I already am behind in my reading.

Back to the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover's "rugged individualism" lost him the election and put Franklin Roosevelt in the presidency. The Roosevelts have a history of progressive political action. Before Franklin was Theodore Roosevelt, who increased government power to regulate Industry when the gap between the rich and poor was huge. Theodore was anti-monopoly and he regulated the railroad. Franklin built on this government control of Industry. However, Hoover, was responsible for reorganizing the federal bureaucracy that made the New Deal possible when Franklin Roosevelt was the president. That is, these men worked together for a more moral and efficient government.

I say a more moral government because not only do I see the moral decisions, but James Williams an American philosopher was concerned about the moral decisions, and he favored the liberal point of view.

"Certainly Dewey does not offer us final or settled solutions but this is not the issue; at various times in his long career, he thought seriously and deeply about many social and moral problems, and it is our contention that he provided his liberal followers with some answers to some of these problems. His social and political activities were a lived extension of his political theorizing. From the First World War to the end of the Depression and after-as long as he was actively involved in social and political movements-he applied his theory to practice in concrete engagements. Dewey's appeal for the use of intelligence in social change can easily lend itself to caricature as long as intelligence retains its scholastic connotation." BY EDWARD J. BORDEAU
https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=rel_fac

That is very exciting to me because it is Enlightenment thinking, and I fully believe it was Enlightenment thinking that made the US great. The most noble purpose of education is to prepare the young to be responsible citizens. This is a far cry from the present mood of the US to oppose intellectualism. And curiously, Christians hated William James.

And in Texas, the grade school textbooks do not mention the problem, and because they buy so many textbooks, they are written to please the people in power. Other states buy books made for Texas, but they may be modified to fit the different state standards. That is unethical.

In 1920 a newspaper warned "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war." There is no excuse for our ignorance. Carter was right about avoiding war by reducing our consumption of oil, and Reagan was a liar when he said we have all the oil we need, because that depended on a military a presence in the Middle East. Technology extended our time to use oil. A technology that depends on a lie and ignorance is unforgivable, and it was the media's duty to keep us informed. We might delay the collapse of our economy but we can not prevent it, while at the same time we are destroying our planet.

We need honesty and we need to act on what we know. We must not let the discussion stop at ignoring the problem because change would hurt.

That double negative indicates non-dogmatic uncertainty and moderate skepticism. I too, am uncertain about The Hard Problem of Consciousness, because the (yes/no) empirical & reductionist scientific method is inadequate to the task of objectively observing the subjective (self-conscious) observer. Yet some scientists & philosophers are using holistic (both/and) methods to make sense of the simplicity in complexity, and the order in chaos*1*2. They hope to shed light on the mystery of how Life & Mind emerged from the random roilings of matter. — Gnomon

Wow, that is delicious. I have a big problem with binary thinking. I did not know that holistic thinking is being practiced by some scientists. That makes me hopeful.

I too have developed a philosophical theory, based primarily on Information Science (Complexity, Systems, Holism, etc). It postulates that the "unifying energy" of evolution is a combination of Information (direction) and Causation (Energy) : like a guided missile instead of an aimless bomb. It's not Deterministic (absolute certainty), but Probabilistic (optional). The theory has little to do with proving the existence of God. But it does point toward the necessity of a First Cause/Prime Mover/Programmer of some kind to light the fuse of the Big Bang bomb. :smile: — Gnomon

I need more information about this. I am limited to ancient Greek thinking of cause and effect, and I am quite sure a better understanding of math would improve my ability to think, but my brain just won't cooperate. The story of evolution seems tied to probabilistic thinking. For sure, plants and animals are not created by a god's whim of what they should look like and how they behave, but they follow the rules of what is possible.

I love the idea of understanding creation as patterns of information that may or may not manifest as matter and life forms. I bookmarked a page for future reference. My brain shuts down when I try to understand too much. I have a book on a shelf that I need to check to see if its information will work with this new information from you.

Are you familiar with "A Beginner's Guide to the Construction of the Universe" By Michael S. Schneider? If you are, what do you think of it?

Indeed it did. My wife fell under its spell and I supported her by attending meetings with her. As frequently happened during that time we ended up divorcing. We drew up the papers ourselves. It was painful at the time, but good for both in the long run. — jgill

How was a divorce good for both of you? Did she have that great career that liberation seemed to promise us, and does she live in economic comfort as we believe we should have? You have added a new dimension to my questions about our sanity.

:lol: I just had a vision of myself as a child sitting on the sidelines watching everyone else play. I am still that child sitting on the sidelines watching everyone else play and wondering what are they thinking?

I was glad when my X left and filed for divorce, but I don't see that as the best possible outcome for the family. From my point of view, men thought women's liberation meant they no longer had family responsibility. They walked away, leaving the women with hurt and angry teenagers. I don't think that was a good thing. Today, it makes my heart happy to see a man in the park with his children. I am hoping the younger men are better husbands and fathers than when there was too much division between what men and women did.

I think if we replace the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model, things would be much better for families. But if women suddenly pulled out of their jobs, it would be as bad for the economy as restricting our use of oil. Two paychecks, two tax payers, meant more money for banks and the government gets more to spend on military might. I am not sure this is best for humanity.

We've led different lives. Mine was more traditional middle class. The usual trek through the education system; working factory jobs to help pay the way. I'm a younger Boomer, and they stopped using the draft lottery with those born the year before I was, so even Vietnam didn't sufficiently radicalize me (or frighten me). I see how the recession impacted you more than it did me.

And I've always been cynical, alas. So, it didn't surprise me that much when Boomers fell under the spell of filthy lucre. But the extent to which the elites want to control our choices and lives as well as profit from them does surprise me. — Ciceronianus

Oh my God! What you said needs to go into the discussion I have been having with BC is the thread about how children should be raised. It is possible we will have exhausted our supply of oil in another 100 years. Let's put that in perspective. A child born today could still be alive when we can no longer maintain our economy, and all industrial economies collapse. We remain on this course because terrible things would happen if we stopped doing what we are doing. This is insane because we live on a finite planet, and there is no way to avoid the disaster.

Constantine moved the Roman capital to the other side of the mountains that were abundant in gold, and this wealth was not shared with the whole of Rome. Those who are getting rich off oil will not share that wealth with us when there is no more oil. Our children born today may see the end of life as we know it, and we are in denial of this reality.

Philosophy does deal with this. Plato's cave deals with this, along with existentialism and nihilism. I don't know enough about those branches of philosophy. I just know Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq wars were about oil, and we are all paying for those wars when we pay taxes and that bill has to get pain before we have universal health care and well-funded schools. The oil industry is getting rich at our expense, and when the oil is gone, yes, our economy collapses. Shouldn't we be able to do better than this?

I focus on democracy because if our economy collapses, so will our governments, and our only hope will be understanding democracy enough to make it work, as humanity struggles to survive in a very hostile climate.

Children can grow up to be open to the always-changing world, to new music ("All music was once new"), new art, new science, new technology, and so on, while also being open to the past. I have no idea of how, exactly, parents should go about that other than to be open themselves both to the ever changing present and the past. And they should do that with as much taste and selectivity as they can manage. New fashion might be hideous, and some new technology might be insidious. We don't have to rush out and buy it. — BC

What if all this crashes in only 100 years? Will our young be prepared to figure out how to survive? We would be far past peak oil if it were not for fracking. If we can't stop using oil, how will people stop using oil one hundred years from now?

According to Youngquist, Rome fell because it exhausted its source of gold. Constantine moved the capital to Rome because that was where the best supply of gold was, and that gold was not shared with the whole of Rome. I am trying to figure out how to discuss things philosophically. Are we as intelligent as we think we are? Or are we all stooges living in denial and about to lose it all?

Once again, I am desperate for more information, and in desperation, I turn to Al because at the moment I can do no right. Maintaining this discussion outside the bounds of philosophy is also wrong. AI puts this back into the philosophy bag.

To ask what happens philosophically if people cannot handle reality is to explore some of the most fundamental questions in human thought. Philosophers have addressed this topic for millennia, from Plato’s metaphor of the cave to modern existentialism and nihilism. The different responses offered reveal a core tension between humanity's desire for meaning and the universe's apparent indifference.

This is a comment about the book made by the online used book store ThriftBooks.

Book Overview
There can be no doubt that as a matter of fact a religious life, exclusively pursued, does tend to make the person exceptional and eccentric. I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohammedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct. These experiences we can only find in individuals for whom religion exists not as a dull habit, but as an acute fever rather. But such individuals are "geniuses" in the religious line; and like many other geniuses who have brought forth fruits effective enough for commemoration in the pages of biography, such religious geniuses have often shown symptoms of nervous instability. Even more perhaps than other kinds of genius, religious leaders have been subject to abnormal psychical visitations. Invariably they have been creatures of exalted emotional sensibility. Often they have led a discordant inner life, and had melancholy during a part of their career. They have known no measure, been liable to obsessions and fixed ideas; and frequently they have fallen into trances, heard voices, seen visions, and presented all sorts of peculiarities which are ordinarily classed as pathological. Often, moreover, these pathological features in their career have helped to give them their religious authority and influence.

That seems to explain what I experienced this morning. For sure, I was emotionally unstable and I thought of using shrooms to enhance this trip, but it is not easily available to me. However, for a lot of money I can, and if I have another experience like I did this morning, I am going to lay out the money. Now we are getting into a question of consciousness. Of what can we be conscious, and how do we know it is real if it is beyond our everyday experience? What if what we think is real, is more of a delusion than we believe? Does any of this matter?

That was beautiful, and I will make this reply simple.

A child born today could be alive 100 years from now.

And making radical changes would likley result in millions dying but that is okay because it will benefit future generations. You know what I mean when I say we need to be cautious.

Imagine the hardship and suffering it would cause to ban people from using fuel, or switching to vegan diets. The best we can do is attack the problems we foresee from multiple angles. We are already doing so in many sectors and huge strides have been made already in terms of how we manage farming. In the near future we probably won't need farmland as hydroponic will have moved on a lot.

The only real threat I am concerned about is AGI, but I am not entirely sure that can/will happen anytime soon. Hard to say. If it does that has far more potential to ruin our lives as well as improve it dramatically.

I am not overly concerned about the future of humanity tbh. Someone needs to be and it looks like you are so that is enough for me. — I like sushi

I wish everyone knew much more about geology than they do. AL fails to give an adequate explanation of what oil has to do with banking, but at least knowing what it has to say would be helpful. You might Google 'what oil has to do with banking' then get back to me. We need to figure the cost of war into the cost of oil. Taxpayers are paying the real cost of oil even if they don't drive. The division of the rich and the poor is unjust, considering what our tax dollars are paying for and what we get in return.

I think high schools should make Youngquist's books about geology mandatory reading. We can not stop the suffering by ignoring our reality and shifting your responsibility to make sane decisions to others, is not being responsible.

Where are we going to get the water for hydroponic farming? What do you know of our supply of water? Google, areas in the US that have water shortages. If you want nightmares, check the NASA map of groundwater in the US. We get food from Mexico. Check out its underground water supply. We are living on borrowed time, and our populations are increasing while our supply of water is decreasing.

Now check out what oil has to do with farming. You can stick your head in the sand, but that will not come out well. I don't think anything is more important to our decision-making than geology. All I can do is make people aware of what they need to know.

AI agrees Louis Moreau Gottschalk blended culturally different music. A look at all the different sources of music makes the social scene look like a very active beehive. Not the slow and isolated progress that has been my opinion of reality. Like if I were smarter, I would create an interactive map of time and earth space. Where is it happening and why?

This is a little far from raising children, but if we did so with a bigger picture of reality, would that change how we raise them? For example, if we are moving into a period of extreme weather, might we want to prepare our young for this? A man is presenting awesome historical explanations on the internet. He said we have had very long periods of extreme climate change that almost led to our extinction. What if we should prepare our young for that? Ignoring what is happening does not seem intelligent to me. We send our children to church to save their souls, but how about preparing them to deal with a water shortage using science instead of mythology, and thinking the earth has always been as God created it, and nothing of importance changes.

Ragtime was very popular in the Black community where it originated, but it also became popular among middle-class whites. Why? How? — BC

How could it not become popular?! It is energetic and lifts a person's spirits. The total opposite of Jim Crow.

Thank you for mentioning things like the availability of sheet music and pianos. Immediately, I thought of my grandmother. It was obvious in her day that a respectable young lady knew how to play the piano. She gave my sister and me piano lessons. I had no idea how important that was to her but I can see that today.

I googled for more information about the availability of pianos, and the explanation came with mention of the social status in a growing middle class and what the piano had to do with that. The growing middle class and increased availability of sheet music and pianos were the result of developing technology. Which pushes me to ask, when did typewriters become essential, and demand for typewriters and people trained to use them skyrocketed with the First World War.

I am moved to tears, and I am not sure why. Perhaps because I am experiencing a strong connection with my grandmother and her generation. And my head is screaming for a philosophical thought that can bring my experience back in line with a philosophical forum. Can you help me? What am I experiencing? It goes with notions of god and man. That is a reality bigger than myself, and being a part of that bigger reality. We are all in the river of time.

That river can be represented with both music and art. Sorry, folks, you can take me out and shoot me, but I have to use AI to make this post much richer than what I can do without it, and my emotional experience at the moment demands I ride this wave. Question, forces behind ragtime music. AI says.

The creation and popularity of ragtime music resulted from the fusion of African American folk rhythms with European classical traditions, amplified by the social and economic conditions of post-Civil War America. Key drivers included the rise of a Black middle class, technological advancements in music distribution, and the vibrant culture of saloons, theaters, and dance halls.

Louis Moreau Gottschalk would begin this transfusion, right?

I am reading my post, and I am thinking, women's liberation happened!

I think we agree that the mood of our nation has changed. I think we agree that the difficult times our parents faced shaped them.

But what generation since theirs has (as a generation) experienced similar times? Most Boomers, I think, abandoned any desire they may have had to serve others and elected to serve themselves. They were used to being served, and accepted it as their due. They became the self-indulgent elites that, together with their progeny, rule us now. They feel entitled to rule and tell others what to do, and more than ever have the means to convince us that this is the way it should be.

This is the example they set. — Ciceronianus

Wow, I am so glad you replied! Your observation seems right, but I am not part of that, and the 1970s recession was like the Great Depression where I live. The college and city were fighting for college renters. We had a joke, "It is easy to have a small business in Eugene. Just start with a big one." and in the hills, there was a large colony of homeless men. At the same time, the downtown looked like a ghost town. That area still has not recovered. The recession was severe and lasted a long time. We were a farming and timber town. I had come up from LA, California, and lived in culture shock, but I am so glad I stayed. For a while, hippies ran this place, and I liked that period best. But the economic crash, led to a flood of Californians pouring in, and now property values are too high, housing is scarce, and the traffic is horrible.

All that said, I have been wondering what happened to those of us who believed we would make the world a better place. I know very well that was my mother's generation's belief. They gave a lot to make life better and we claimed their hopes and aspirations with the belief we would do better than they did, but :scream: I am screaming :scream: what happened to the rest of my generation? Why did they become so materialistic? Why are they all about themselves? How could they betray us? I remember being told when we grew up we get back on track with the materialistic and less ideal capitalist way.

Can I slip in a dramatic fact of that time period? Many women of my cohort postponed careers to care for the family, and during the recession, our husbands were experiencing midlife crises and they walked out, leaving us alone to support the children. We had to hide our education to get jobs, and thank heavens the children were teenagers, so we didn't have child care costs, but meth hit the streets, and our teenagers were hurt and angry, and the lack of jobs meant they were not absorbed into mainstream society. They came of age at a very bad time. And as grandparents, we had to fight the state for custody of our grandchildren. And we won. Policy and law radically changed in favor of the family.

Somehow, in all this mess, your words ring true. The reasoning for communal living was sound, but psychologically, we were not prepared for that, and most communes failed. I remember a social war on communal living. Like it just wasn't American!

Edward T Hill was an anthropologist and wrote of how every culture has a consciousness and a subconscious, just as individuals do. I think nations need periodic analysis just like humans do, and for the same reason. What lies in our subconscious can become problematic.

That might not be true, but for sure my life is wrapped around the Great Depression and World War. I don't think that is common. But I am fixated on that past. I am sure our parents were as they were because of what they experienced during the difficult times. It was as important to my mother to make people happy by entertaining them as it was to Bob Hope. It is something that came out of that time in history, as the hippy movement and peace activism came out of my time. When my mother was made aware of hippies, she said she thought she was always one. Yeap, she was. "put another cup of water in the soup, someone is coming to dinner". "Go to your room until you can come out with a smile". 'Don't cry. Be strong for me".

And then came Kennedy. "Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". That nationalism was so different from what it is today. And Kennedy gave us the Older Americans Act, which entitled us to decent housing, transportation, nutrition sites, senior centers, free college classes, and opportunities so we could continue contributing to society. Opportunities like the Senior Companion Program and Grandparents who volunteered in the schools, and we got a stipend of $2.65 for our volunteering if we were low-income. That has all been destroyed as the mood of our nation has changed.

I follow your mention of the Tao and the notions of unity or separation. I have a problem with believing we are separate from God. The Egyptians believed in a trinity of the soul. One dies with our body, the second part is judged and may or may not go on to the good life, and the third part returns to the Tao. The Egyptians didn't develop a concept of Toa, but we don't have a better word for it.

Following what you just said, our knowledge is limited to our language. I prefer Eastern concepts to Western ones. I resent making the Trinity a trinity of God because that forces the authority of God as separate from our being. That is opposed to the notion of Tao. We are part of Tao. Not separate from the Tao. The authority is within me. It is not separate from my being. I do not fear being rejected by a God, because I am part of God/Tao.

I think our separation from God is an illusion made essential to our being, which is ego. I know I am not one with God because I have so many imperfections. Now I have a choice. I can let go of my ego and be one with God/Tao, or maintain my ego and separateness.

The link begins with "The Depression left deep emotional scars on the American psyche." During this period in time, music gave people an escape and entertainment. Just before the crash, the song "Happy Days Are Here Again" was written for a movie, and it became Franklin Roosevelt's campaign song. I think Roosevelt was a pretty awesome man with encouraging words like "the only we have to fear is fear itself". A personal philosophy he developed because he had asthma and many life-threatening moments. He defied doctors' orders to live a very sheltered life and repeatedly put himself in dangerous circumstances. He was the man we needed in our most difficult times.

The song "Happy Days Are Here Again" was written for a movie just before the crash. Roosevelt used that song for his campaign to be the president of the US. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is an impossible feat, but the saying became a metaphor for achieving success and self-sufficiency through sheer effort. Baby Boomers were the children of those who survived the Great Depression, and we carry the attitudes and memories of tough times. A far cry from today's expectations of immediate gratification.

Roosevelt began Social Security based on age, not need! No one wanted to accept charity because it was so shameful. To protect the dignity of the elderly SS is based on age, and many years later it is followed by the Older Americans Act, which again took care of those who survived the depression. Social Security benefited everyone because by making it possible for the elderly to retire, it opened jobs for the young. And yes, SS was the only income for most people in that generation. They were also the generation that fought in the First World War. What do these have to do with nationalism, the following generation, and today?

In the good old days (which were not so good) censors worried about sexual content -- which back then was more like innuendo and suggestion. — BC

But I like that innuendo and suggestion, and I don't like in-your-face anything. And I don't like being yelled at. When I was dealing with teenagers, I enjoyed heavy metal music, but that is not what I want to hear or watch today. My son liked Kiss, and I am quite sure my mother would say they were good entertainers. Should we start a thread about the popular music we listened to when we came of age?

Philosophically, we come from a long history of believing good music is important. AI makes an interesting statement about the history and science of good music. Too bad it is against the rules to quote AI. The AI statement would be a good way to start that thread.

I think each cohort has its unique music inspired by the time. AI says that during the Great Depression, bands offered escape and entertainment. Performing was very important to my mother and Bob Hope. Both of them wanted to make people happy. Back in the day we did not take happiness for granted.

For sure the mood of the country is different today than when I grew up full of hope that we would make a better world. I am trying to stay connected to the subject of this thread.

My daughter is a member of a LGBTQ group that does shows almost weekly. She lives to perform in the shows as a singer and travels to the cities from Los Vegas, Nevada, to Seattle, Washington. I am so glad she found something that gives her so much happiness. She is her grandmother's daughter.:lol: My mother sang for USO shows and moved the family to Hollywood, California, because she wanted to be in the movies.

About shows, I loved the Chippendale shows. And I don't mind eye candy.:grin:

I lost a very old book about marriage, which said sex is not a bad thing, and in its day, that may have been a shocking thing to say. My grandmother and her friends thought sex was for animals and not humans. In the old book, the author argued that good sex makes a marriage good, and an anthropologist argued that good sex can keep the man and woman together for longer, and that gives their offspring a better chance in life. Love improves our health. Being happy improves our health.

It is good for the children when the parents are loving and happy, and today, the parents can be of the same sex. Hopefully, we can work on having healthy attitudes with better science.

I find that the idea of 'God' and what it means for such a being to exist to be one of the most extremely perplexing philosophy problems. — Jack Cummins

I have a problem with believing God is a being with a personality, likes, and dislikes, just like a real person. For sure, this is a humanized god, but originally it is not the personal god many people want, so Jesus is deified and created as the "loving god" we want. Jesus replaced the jealous, revengeful, and punishing god, who was feared, along with fearing Satan, for over a thousand years. Not until our bellies were full did we think god is a "loving god".

When you speak of Zeus and Shiva, they are images of what greater reality may exist. From my reading of Jung I came to see the Judaeo- Christian picture developed in the Bible as an image. My mother told me how at times she used to imagine God the father as the old man and Jesus as the young man. — Jack Cummins

All the gods are concepts. Whenever the ancients realized a new concept, they created a god to explain that concept. This got completely out of control, and an Egyptian pharaoh's grandfather ordered a search of the archives for the real god. This led to the pharaoh building a city for this new god and forbidding the worship of all other gods. That made things very bad for all those priests who profited from the belief in many gods, so they attempted to wipe that pharaoh out of history. They ended up preserving his memory when they crushed and buried his city.

However, I am not sure that the energy from the moment of the Big Bang is not also a unifying energy evolving into self-consciousness.

It seems to imply that an individual is an independent being. Nothing could be further from the truth. — praxis

Oh, but it is a long-standing American myth. I think especially the 1950-1960 cowboy TV shows and the John Wayne portrayal of a man fed into the myth. But the Western movement may have also given us the notion that we are individuals who can go it alone. Many of us move when the neighbors get too close. We are not as social as I have heard people of other countries are social. That mythology requires an unsettled West with lots of land and resources just waiting to be taken. It does not work in today's world. Now we need to get along with others and share. Those values were taught in old textbooks, but I don't think they are standards in textbooks for a technological society.

We have been running on the belief that true science is amoral and has nothing to do with our feelings. @AmadeusD is a man of his time.

If I'm following correctly you're saying:
Offense can't be given.
Thought can be given.
Meaning can't be given.

Is that right? — praxis

I think that is an example of poor emotional intelligence. We might be at the beginning of a new shift where emotional intelligence increases to right the wrongs of the past. Right now, the daily news may be creating a backlash to the opinion that emotions are bad and are to be suppressed or completely ignored. I am thinking of beginning a new thread about what economic crashes and wars have to do with our emotional and economic well-being.

I am working with the notion of a New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny. The transition is difficult, and I am not sure we will succeed.

The most pointed attempt I know to “prove someone wrong” would be Austin’s reading of Ayer in “Sense and Sensibilia” which we read through here. But even there, Ayer is just a straw man of the argument for “sense data” that Austin uses to actually figure it out, not just prove Ayer “wrong”—it is actually fair and (somewhat) understanding. The most generous and in-depth reading that I know of (while still a complete reversal) has to be Wittgenstein’s examination in “Philosophical Investigations” of his own earlier positions. Austin is waaay more readable though (plus it’s only like 70 pages). — Antony Nickles

Some days my brain works better than other days. This morning I understand the reason I have trouble understanding what you said is I don't know enough. I regret I missed out on reading "Sense and Sensibilia" . It must be a good book because ThriftBooks is selling it for a relatively high price. :gasp: Wittgenstein's book is even more. I will resist the urge to buy the books until I have read the pile of books I have. Can you explain more about it?

Discussions and debates also contribute to teamwork involving a conjecture--- so the more polite we are to each other, the more gets done and the more gets properly filtered. There is no point in suppressive techniques unless the conjecture has already been through the filter and doesn't require an easy team effort. — Barkon

I have a dear, younger friend who earns the big bucks in high-tech research. The teamwork you speak of is essential to her job.

I so wish America would ditch its autocratic industrial model and switch to Deming's democratic model. It would be nice to do that before we have an economic crash that takes us down, like Rome went down.
Not only could this save our economy, but it would be great for families as well.

Cormac McCarthy's The Road was a disturbing story. I was going to watch the movie as well, but decided it would load way too many disturbing images into my head. I've read a couple of science fiction stories where the same thing applied -- the text was disturbing enough. So yes, material that is disturbing to adults is likely to be just as disturbing to children. — BC

Okay, and should we subject our children to that? When we had sensorship, we could tell the stories but make the show less sensational. Have you seen the original King Kong movie? The sexuality was there, but not in-your-face like the modern version of the movie. I much prefer the indoendo to the in-your-face sensationalism we have today; that is cheap and a jolt to my nervous system.

I watched Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with friends, and we were shocked by all the sexuality we did not remember being in the show. Disney's Fantasia is also very sexual. However, it is doubtful that those who are not sexually experienced would notice the sexuality. It is the difference between a strip tease and the in-your-face experience common today. And frankly, it is to me, a little gross. I think I am pretty liberal. I just don't like things done with no class. :lol: Oh dear, I may be a snub. But I think having standards are important to a civilization. I don't like bringing everything down to the lowest level, and I don't think that is good for society.

Reality check, I remember hearing songs were written by adults with standards until the Beatles came along with their own songs. AI agrees with me. :lol: This is appropriate for this thread because there is a long history of musical revolutions and parents fighting against it. I mean, touching while dancing is shocking! The waltz is immoral. :wink: How do we keep our children good when we are falling into evil?

At least we stopped advertising cigarettes. I think some agree there is a connection between what we see and what we do. For a very short time, I did advertising research until I realized how unethical that is. The average person has no defenses against the manipulation of advertising that is largely subliminal. People earn good money figuring out how to manipulate potential customers.

AI gives a different intent to Disney's Fantasia than I expected. :lol: It was not marketed for children, but adults, and it is too bad we cannot use AI quotes that make our post more interesting.

I have at least two reactions to what you said.

The first one comes from having social studies classes in college, and the impression that once something gets through the process of research, it resymbolizes reality as much as a plastic-wrapped steak resymbolizes the cow it came from.

You mentioned imagination, and I am thinking of the copycat crimes, and wonder if lives would be saved if we didn't give the world bad things to copy? The news might be important, and so might the delivery of the news be important. Personally, I am in favor of a higher standard of ethical professionalism.

Many people hold the parents responsible and say they should be able to prevent their child from watching TV programs that could have a bad effect. I think that is not realistic because this involves more than our own children. I think violent and cruel TV shows are socially bad for everyone. Kind of like Socrates saying we should be careful about the stories of the gods that we spread.

I know a frightening show can leave me feeling frightened, and one that makes me feel bad, such a show about a man abusing his wife, can cause me to feel bad for 3 days. I have to be careful about what I watch, and I know everyone is not like me. But I would not want my children to watch a show that is upsetting to me. Perhaps asking our children how they react to different shows could result in reasoning that is good for our own families?

And music- have you seen how Elvis moves his hips? :gasp: My mother thought he was an excellent entertainer. I think the music in my day got us out of Vietnam. Music is very important. And some rap music is good, and some is socially very bad.

Good for her. Yes, in a way teen years are a form of 'insanity'. The overriding principles are recalcitrance and insubordination. — L'éléphant

I just read

BC — BC

reality check on my fantasy of pioneer women having the internet, and maybe back in the day, survival needs made parenting easier. He sure drew a good picture of life being more challenging than it is now.

I keep studying just in case I find myself sitting at the large dining table in the sky with the Great Thinkers of history. I would love to hear what they have to say about our times. However, we do have the sentiments of a Sumerian father, whose son did not appreciate the good life his father gave him and did not focus on his education to become a scribe. It seems to be our nature to have difficulty getting through our teen years.

:lol: You really messed up my fantasy with your reality check.

Funny thing about "liberal education" is those few with the most of it have always, in theory and practice, substantially denied it to the many who need it to help liberate themselves. Modern history shows that "liberal education" (as e.g. Jefferson / Paine / Marx suggest) is only a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for liberty of the many. — 180 Proof

Interesting. What must go with a liberal education to manifest liberty?

I came across the notion that those who want liberty have the least freedom because of being self-regulating. That is, we do not do whatever we feel like doing, but we choose to do the right thing, even when we don't want to. I have heard the way to protect our liberty is to obey the law. But sometimes the law is unjust, and then action must be taken to correct that wrong.

I am usually arguing the importance of a liberal education, and Jefferson would not deny anyone a liberal education. Jefferson held that universal education is the most effective means of preserving democracy and good government.

Our antipathy isn't directed at what you've described what you use it for, at least. You're not copy-pasting directly out of it, and you're willing to hear other sources rather than rely upon it as a source -- it's a tool for seeing something you may not have heard about, but you're not parading it about like an authority. — Moliere

Old age is a double-edged sword. My brain isn't doing some things so well, but it is doing other things much better. What I like best is that I totally get that even the best of minds are very limited. Even the best authority is limited to a very tiny bit of information compared to all there is to know. Now I don't have the words for what I want to say, but I have a better understanding of the meaning. This is a moment when I have to Google for the words I am trying to remember. And here are the words I wanted to remember. "The More You Know The More You Realize You Don't Know".

:grin: That is a perfect explanation of why I want to use AI. The information is in my brain but I can't think of the right words.

Secondly, I am a fighter if the cause is important to me, and in this forum, everyone is so nice that there is nothing to be upset about. I keep thinking if I think of the right words to say, everyone will agree with my reasoning. :lol: Or maybe not. :lol: As long as everyone is nice about it, it doesn't really matter if we disagree.