site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   3762 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 24, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I live in peace and tranquillity, beholden to none. With no loyalty to bind me, I have nothing to defend. With nothing to defend I have no need to attack.

Do you think if I threaten his kid or his wife that he wouldn't jump to their defence? Or at least have the impulse to do something

Or am I reading his words incorrectly/too literally?

He's talking about feeling defensive (which arises due to the feeling of loyalty to some deeply-held belief or passion), not physical defence.

As for physical defence, this anecdote might be of interest:

RICHARD: Perhaps a personal anecdote will throw some light upon the subject of being fully engaged: some years ago whilst in a supermarket my wife and I had a pack stolen from the shopping trolley we were using when our backs were turned; I saw a young man disappearing along the aisle with our pack and on out through the turnstile; I went off after him at a brisk pace, negotiated the turnstile easily, and moved out through the self-opening doors; there was an ornamental garden between me and the car-park wherein off in the distance the young man could be seen heading away; I cleared the garden in one leap – seeing each and every plant and flower in detail as I sailed over it – and soon caught up to him as, glancing over his shoulder and seeing me coming, he headed for a crowded mall to the left ... and eventually regained the pack without a fight or even any display of intimidation. Upon returning to the supermarket I passed by the garden, through the pathway provided, and noticed by its width that I would not ordinarily be able to leap over it ... necessity provides all the calorific energy required.

He was a big, muscular young man such that I would not wish to enter into a ring with as I would be bound to come off second-best in any such organised sport. He knew that he had crossed the line in regards to the legal laws and social protocol and fully expected to pay the price for his actions ... his bluff and bluster collapsed like a leaky balloon when confronted in the mall with the straightforward request for the return of property not belonging to him.

Interestingly enough I was not even breathing heavily.

Is this a post from /r/thathappened ?

This sounds like such a fucking LARP

EDIT: To make this an effort post and to be a good Mottizen.

The reason this obvious fictitious story is so reprehensible is because it's fallacy actually doubles down against that thing which the author is ostensibly advocating; detachment, serenity, peace.

The fact of the matter (that I can't prove is fact but is, yet, still obvious and factual) is that this dude made up this LARP of a story to demonstrate how much he doesn't care. If you're the guy yelling "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK" as loud as you can ... you're a walking contradiction. Add on top of that some subtle bragging and an implication that this enlightened fellow was so put together, self-assured, and confident that the BRIGAND HE CONFRONTED WAS FORCED TO YIELD TO THE SUPERIOR SPECIMEN. Seriously dude, fuck off with all that nonsense.

People don't need another snake oil salesman to sell them on bullshit like mindfulness and detachment. The unavoidable truth is that much of life is either boring, or frustrating, or unfair, or just random, or sort of unsatisfying. Trying to change those basics facts is foolhardy. Dealing with them is the mission of religion, philosophy, psychedelics, what have you. But the one guaranteed thing not to work is "just ... let go."

Yeah what a load of bullshit.

We ask users to refrain from low-effort posts that round to "I agree". If that's all you've got, just hit the upvote button and move on.

I kinda hope he’s not being that literal as I think a life with no feelings would be one with little joy or connection or compassion. If I can kill without feeling anything, I’m capable of being a moral monster.

You have to go a step deeper to see it. What is it that drives one to kill? It is the malicious instinctual passions that humans have inherited due to our animal nature.

These automatically form themselves into a 'self'/'Self', which is what you who is reading this right now are experiencing yourself to be.

The key with actual freedom is that this self disappears in its entirety. Along with it go the 'good' and 'bad' feelings which includes the malice that would drive one to kill (even without remorse or in a "cold" way). Absent that, one is automatically & intrinsically benevolent.

The only way to really understand this is to have a Pure Consciousness Experience where you can temporarily experience being alive in the manner described above. You can read people's descriptions about it here, it is extremely common and probably everybody has had one at some point in their life: http://actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/others/corr-pce.htm .

Honestly I wish you could turn feelings off. I dislike feeling envy, anger, hate, despair etc. It would be nice if I could just get on with my day without always questioning what's the point.

Interesting read but I think there is no useful information in that post. However he has another post that has a link to a video that says that the digital yuan will take over the petrodollar as the reserve currency. Glad I saw that, I found it convincing. I'm going to try get in early.

Honestly I wish you could turn feelings off. I dislike feeling envy, anger, hate, despair etc.

What about the "good" feelings though?

You can't turn off your aforementioned "bad" feelings because they are inextricably linked to the "good" feelings. For eg., hate is linked to love. Which is why, Richard advices minimizing both the good & the bad feelings, while maximizing the felicitous & innocuous ones. Then, you will eventually have a PCE, wherein the feelings are in abeyance.

I would forgo the good feelings if it meant I’d also get to forgo the bad. But then, I’d count melancholy, dissatisfaction, and ennui as bad feelings, even though it seems to me that each of those is as much the absence of any particular emotion as it is an emotional state in itself. So the whole thing is probably impractical from the get go.

(Edited to fix grammar)

Great! You can do it, then - I speak from experience :)

The key is that there are certain feelings, termed felicitous feelings, that are distinct from the 'good' feelings in that they can occur without any specific condition triggering them. The very basic level of it is generally being in a good mood. What Richard discovered, and many have replicated, is that it's possible to minimize the 'good' and 'bad' feelings, while maximizing the felicitous feelings. The latter is important because you can't just turn feelings off completely -- that affective energy has to 'go' somewhere, and the felicitous feelings is where it can increasingly pour into.

It is possible to experience being conscious sans feelings entirely, but this is only doable by 'you' (as in the 'ego' currently thinking and the 'soul' currently feeling whilst reading this) going temporarily into abeyance in 'your' entirety. As 'you' are 'your' feelings, when 'you' go, so too do the 'feelings', because they are one and the same. This experience, termed a Pure Consciousness Experience (PCE), is where you can experientially see that you do actually exist, as a flesh and blood human being, and that the 'identity' that was just thinking and feeling itself do substantially exist, doesn't, actually. The identity is very 'real', but not actual -- exactly like Santa Claus is very real to a child, but does not actually exist. Absent identity in its entirety, life is intrinsically wondrous, enjoyable, and the universe is experienced to be what it actually is, which is intrinsically benevolent, benign, and friendly.

I cannot recommend it highly enough. For various descriptions of PCEs, see: http://actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/others/corr-pce.htm .

I must ask that you post these with your original account.

I messaged you about this

Yup. Under discussion, sorry.

Can mods officially confirm that using a second account--for whatever reasonable purpose--is categorically disallowed?

(For the record: I'm not OP, nor do I have a 2nd account)

EDIT: It is in the rules

We strongly discourage people from making alt accounts without good reason, and in the absence of a good reason, we consider alt accounts to be bannable on sight.

Alright, so alt accounts are permissible with good reasons provided.

You don't think it is weird that there are now 2 accounts, one brand new, promoting a GeoCities style fringe website no one has ever heard of all in the span of a few days? I mean the whole thing reads like new age woo and that is why it is being dismissed out of hand here.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats