The Nature of Consciousness

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by Skepdick » Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:41 pm

tapaticmadness wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:49 am
I am not a moralist. I think violence, both physical and intellectual, is right at the heart of who and what we are and it cannot be erased.
And you don't think violence can be used for moral purposes?

Moralism does not mandate pacifism. Numerous sentiments to the contrary follow...

Might makes right.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Unknown wrote: You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.

If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful, you’re harmless.

Important distinction.
Thucydides wrote: A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by tapaticmadness » Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:33 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:41 pm

And you don't think violence can be used for moral purposes?

Revolutionaries always think that the violence they do will lead to peace and a better world. Maybe will, but it probably won't. My interest in violence is other. the question is whether or not the suffering poor and those afflicted with pain have, because of their suffering a pain, a special knowledge and feeling of bliss. Do the poor know something that the rich don't? Is pain in any way a liberating, joyful experience?

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by tapaticmadness » Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:34 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:20 pm
tapaticmadness wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:49 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:15 am
[

So Quora is full of atavists?

I'll have to check it out.
OMG, I made a mistake. For some reason I thought I was on Quora, but that can't be because I am currently banned from there because I say bad things about atheists and they report me to the principal. I argued that anti-theism is a cult. Anyway, yes, you might like Quora. What is an atavist? The people on Quora and this site are all moralists. I am not a moralist. I think violence, both physical and intellectual, is right at the heart of who and what we are and it cannot be erased.
Old school, very old school, old school from a quarter million years back.
What?

Skepdick
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by Skepdick » Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:44 pm

tapaticmadness wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:33 pm
Revolutionaries always think that the violence they do will lead to peace and a better world.
But that's not the kind of violence I am talking about. Mass-violence never ends well - because group mentality.

I am talking about decisive and direct violent action towards an immediate threat. That kind of violence saves lives.

Somebody is trying to hurt your family - in the act of protecting your loved one the attacker dies. That is moral violence.

In fact, watching your family get hurt while you do nothing to prevent it - that is is immoral. Harmlessness is immoral.
tapaticmadness wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:33 pm
My interest in violence is other. the question is whether or not the suffering poor and those afflicted with pain have, because of their suffering a pain, a special knowledge and feeling of bliss. Do the poor know something that the rich don't? Is pain in any way a liberating, joyful experience?
Dostoyevsky had thoughts on that...

Man is sometimes, extraordinarily , passionately, in love with suffering: that is a fact.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by tapaticmadness » Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:13 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:44 pm
tapaticmadness wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:33 pm
Revolutionaries always think that the violence they do will lead to peace and a better world.
But that's not the kind of violence I am talking about. Mass-violence never ends well - because group mentality.

I am talking about decisive and direct violent action towards an immediate threat. That kind of violence saves lives.

Somebody is trying to hurt your family - in the act of protecting your loved one the attacker dies. That is moral violence.

In fact, watching your family get hurt while you do nothing to prevent it - that is is immoral. Harmlessness is immoral.
tapaticmadness wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:33 pm
My interest in violence is other. the question is whether or not the suffering poor and those afflicted with pain have, because of their suffering a pain, a special knowledge and feeling of bliss. Do the poor know something that the rich don't? Is pain in any way a liberating, joyful experience?
Dostoyevsky had thoughts on that...

Man is sometimes, extraordinarily , passionately, in love with suffering: that is a fact.
The first part of what you wrote seems to be commonsense and there isn't much there to argue about. The second part, though, is, at least to me, very interesting. Not only Dostoevsky, but Christian practice also finds suffering to have value; there's even pleasure in it for the saints. Michel Foucault also found that participating in S&M to be liberating and he refused to condemn torture. It is also the case that human beings love to sing sad songs and mourn over the death of a young beautiful person. We like to read about the kidnapping and rape of some beauty. And we feel a delightful shiver go through us in a scary movie. I think human beings are in love with violence. The Marquis de Sade is high priest in our Religion of Violence. Hurray the End Times and the Terrible Apocalypse is near. In the meantime we are working hard to bring on the end of Man through climate change. Freud's Death Wish is in operation. Enough.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by tapaticmadness » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:20 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:20 pm
tapaticmadness wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:49 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:15 am
[

So Quora is full of atavists?

I'll have to check it out.
OMG, I made a mistake. For some reason I thought I was on Quora, but that can't be because I am currently banned from there because I say bad things about atheists and they report me to the principal. I argued that anti-theism is a cult. Anyway, yes, you might like Quora. What is an atavist? The people on Quora and this site are all moralists. I am not a moralist. I think violence, both physical and intellectual, is right at the heart of who and what we are and it cannot be erased.
Old school, very old school, old school from a quarter million years back.
Please say more about what you mean. I'm curious.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7697
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

atavism/atavist

Post by henry quirk » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:35 am

1. The reappearance of a characteristic in an organism after several generations of absence.
2. An individual or a part that exhibits atavism. Also called throwback.
3. The return of a trait or recurrence of previous behavior after a period of absence.
4. A person of atavistic beliefs or habits.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: atavism/atavist

Post by tapaticmadness » Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:46 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:35 am
1. The reappearance of a characteristic in an organism after several generations of absence.
2. An individual or a part that exhibits atavism. Also called throwback.
3. The return of a trait or recurrence of previous behavior after a period of absence.
4. A person of atavistic beliefs or habits.
So how are you an atavist?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7697
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: atavism/atavist

Post by henry quirk » Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:13 am

tapaticmadness wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:46 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:35 am
1. The reappearance of a characteristic in an organism after several generations of absence.
2. An individual or a part that exhibits atavism. Also called throwback.
3. The return of a trait or recurrence of previous behavior after a period of absence.
4. A person of atavistic beliefs or habits.
So how are you an atavist?
In the context of the world as it is: I'm a friggin' solitary carnivorous ape.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: atavism/atavist

Post by tapaticmadness » Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:40 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:13 am
tapaticmadness wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:46 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:35 am
1. The reappearance of a characteristic in an organism after several generations of absence.
2. An individual or a part that exhibits atavism. Also called throwback.
3. The return of a trait or recurrence of previous behavior after a period of absence.
4. A person of atavistic beliefs or habits.
So how are you an atavist?
In the context of the world as it is: I'm a friggin' solitary carnivorous ape.
Being solitary and filled with existential angst is the very definition of modern man, no ape was ever that. And the only cure for modernity is REVOLUTION!!. Blood in the streets. Or maybe a nice juicy steak from the flank of an animal you kill with your own hands.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7697
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: atavism/atavist

Post by henry quirk » Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:00 am

tapaticmadness wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:40 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:13 am
tapaticmadness wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:46 am


So how are you an atavist?
In the context of the world as it is: I'm a friggin' solitary carnivorous ape.
Being solitary and filled with existential angst is the very definition of modern man, no ape was ever that. And the only cure for modernity is REVOLUTION!!. Blood in the streets. Or maybe a nice juicy steak from the flank of an animal you kill with your own hands.
I ain't angsty, apes (the orangutan, for example) can be solitary, and I killed a coyote with a knife (didn't eat it).

As for revolution: violent dissent is better.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: atavism/atavist

Post by tapaticmadness » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:35 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:00 am
tapaticmadness wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:40 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:13 am


In the context of the world as it is: I'm a friggin' solitary carnivorous ape.
Being solitary and filled with existential angst is the very definition of modern man, no ape was ever that. And the only cure for modernity is REVOLUTION!!. Blood in the streets. Or maybe a nice juicy steak from the flank of an animal you kill with your own hands.
I ain't angsty, apes (the orangutan, for example) can be solitary, and I killed a coyote with a knife (didn't eat it).

As for revolution: violent dissent is better.
The coyote is the most aware creature there is ... because he is completely paranoid. Charles Manson circa 1969

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7697
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by henry quirk » Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:32 pm

I'm not too interested in what Manson had to say on any subject.

He was a loon and it's good he's dead.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by tapaticmadness » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:06 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:32 pm
I'm not too interested in what Manson had to say on any subject.

He was a loon and it's good he's dead.
I think I have never felt righteous indignation at anything or anyone. I really don't understand it.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7697
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The Nature of Consciousness

Post by henry quirk » Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:49 am

tapaticmadness wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:06 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:32 pm
I'm not too interested in what Manson had to say on any subject.

He was a loon and it's good he's dead.
I think I have never felt righteous indignation at anything or anyone. I really don't understand it.
He, Manson, was a cancer. One doesn't get indignant over a cancer.

You just cut it out.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests