Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools)

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:

Hmm, I never thought about it. For me, all quotes look alright. Could you send
me an exact copy and mark where the error is? Maybe I've gotten so used to it I
don't notice it?

>
Omg, it turns out it's *my* fault!  Sorry about that.  I mean---not my
fault exactly, but Gnus'.  Gnus is messing up my quotes when I M-RET at
points to reply---it messes up quotes above and sometimes quotes below.
Incredible.  I must report this.  (It sometimes does and I don't see it,
so it goes broken up.)

Oh, glad you found the solution! =)

Proving anything is quite useless for regular people.  Proving is useful
in math, less in science and that's just about it, I think.  (By the
way, when I see people saying things like ``scientifically proven'',
they have no idea what they're talking about.)

>
Well, let's make the distinction of proof (math) and evidence
(science). Maybe that makes it more clear?

>
By ``proving anything'' I had in mind any kind of good argument.  It's
of no use to a lot of people.  People are not making very rational
decisions.  I mean---they make rational decisions in a certain level,
but it's not very deep reason.  That's why society is full of apparent
paradoxes.

Ahh... got it! Yes, I agree with that. It is very fun with the war in Ukraine,
when talking with russians who are only exposed to russian propaganda. It is
very difficult to reason, since there is no baseline for truth.

Battle for me is something intentional, and intentional conflict between two
groups. Even though it is not good, I don't know if I would categorize it as a
"battle" between the sexes. Just a backwards, retarded culture and religion,
that will hopefully go away in a generation or two. =/

>
It's okay---I don't care for the words.  If not war or battle, something
else.  We're both seeing what's hapenning.  I call it one thing and you
call it another.  I might find it disturbing and you might call me too
sensitive.  That's what we're dealing with every day.  Similarly, some
people might find it's all beautiful and they could be on drugs, say. :)

Haha... true. But I try to be optimistic about the world. Sometimes it is not
easy, but in general I find it a much more productive attitude than other
options.
Yes, my drug is caffeine. ;)

We need to deal with this.  That's a pretty big part of communication.
That's why I appreciate some of the art of listening.  I appreciate
thoughts like those of David Bohm that one would find in ``On
Dialogue''.  By the way, whatever changes you're seeing, I say it's all
on the surface.

What is this about? Maybe I should make a note of that text.

Well, from one point of view, he is. He is an individual, and I would say that
as long as he is open with only looking for certain services, and a woman is
looking to provide services, that's good!

>
Your ``that's good'' here is likely materialist.  You might be saying
``if they're happy, what's the problem?''  That's essentially
saying---it's not my problem.  People can often claim to be happy and
even appear happy, when in reality...  That's parents worry so much
about their children (and often others beyond than theirs).

This is true. But they are adults, and beyond pointing out something, at the end
of the day, I have no legal right or any right for that matter, to control their
lives.
It is perfectly true, what you are saying, and you could be right, and it would
be a tragedy, but I prefer to assume things are alright, until proven otherwise.
When it comes to parents and children, there is a different set of expectations,
both cultural and legal, so I don't think it would carry over.
There is a fine line between wanting to help, when it is justified, and being
labeled a "Karen".

too---, I actually say that he has a health problem that makes him quite
insensitive.  Who is suffering the most?  Himself.  His insensibility,
for example, blinds him even to his own nutrition.  He's losing his
health slowly year after year.

>
That is sad. =(

>
Such is life.  It's difficult.  You can tell people of their symptons,
but they don't see it---they don't believe it.  When people can't tune
themselves to intelligence, it becomes quite difficult to do anything
intelligent.

This is the truth! But I think you have done what you can do, and you shouldn't
feel bad about it. At the end of the day, he is an adult and responsible for his
own life.

open my window to give him a bit of privacy in his little party.
Chatting went on for a while and then suddenly silence.  So I looked and
then his friend was likely inside the house and he was having sex in the
pool.

>
Wow! Brazil, here I come! ;)

>
Lol.  You could be getting the wrong impression. :) But the real remark
to be made here, in a more serious tone, is that this is no good.  For
instance, when I saw them in the swimming pool, the first thing I
thought was---omg, what a place for that.  And he was in own home---he
likely left the most comfortable place for his friend.  Of course,
people might love this kind of stuff.  It's not shameful or obscene or
whatever---I couldn't care less about any of that.  I'm saying it's just
a someone trying to get some relief, without much of a clue of what's
going on.

True. Could be a good example of pleasure now, at the expense of pain later.

By the way, if I were mildly inclined to the same, I could likely be
there myself.  When they moved in, they threw various parties and
invited me to them all.  I had lots of chances to blend in, but I
couldn't, really: I don't drink; I don't stay up all the night; what I

Haha, well, sounds like you probably did yourself a favour. I am fascinated! In
sweden, it would be exceptionally rare that any neighbour would be invited.

eat is the nearly the bare minimum and from a very picky selection.
It's a totally different life style.  And, hey, don't get me wrong: I
actually like them.  I like both of them.  One of the first things I do
when I wake up is open up my window.  I love natural light.  I only
opened my window by midday that day---that's when they had already left
home (likely to some more fun).  I also spotted my neighbor's friend
with his head down on a table trying to rest a bit.  In all probability,
they spent the night out, arrived in the morning with the two girls and
didn't sleep for a minute.  Of course, with whisky, Red Bulls, beers and
that kind of nonsense.

Haha... wow! I don't think I could do that in my 30s even. ;) Brazilians are
very well trained! ;)

That's one of the things I eventually noticed.  The first thing to do to
put your life in order is to quit all drugs---bad food included.  To
enjoy a whole night without sleep, you gotta be on something.  The body
loves to sleep if it's well regulated.

I probably shouldn't tell your this, but I looooove Mc Donalds hamburgers! ;) My
wife forbids me from eating them too often, so I'm probably at about 9 per year
or so. ;)

Hmm, I never think I ever experienced anything like it in the far, far
north. People are way too reserved for anything like that to happen,
at least where I have been living, oh, and of course there's never
been any swimming pools close by as well. ;)

>
I do believe Brazilians are on average less reserved.  There's a lot of
poor people here.  People who live in the slums, for example.  I have
never been too close, but they're everywhere so I often observe them.
One problem I've spent some hours (that is, almost nothing) on is why do
poor people talk so loud.  My hypothesis is that they grow up in
space-deprived environments, neighbors are too close by, no privacy and
so on.  It becomes the normal thing, so they might not feel being
exposed at all to whoever is around.

Loud? Southern europeans are loud by my standard, so if they are loud by your
standards, then they must be _really_ loud! I once had a brazilian colleague
from Sao Paolo for 2 months, and he was a really nice guy. But once he had some
fellow brazilians over and the volume did increase. =)
I suspect he came from a wealthy family because when he went back to Brazil, his
luggage was full of play stations and electronics that he said he could easily
sell at twice the price. There must have been some very high tariffs at that
time.

If all are in on it, who am I to judge? Our dear lord teaches us to "judge
not...". On the other hand, if his wife is not in on it, it is very sad and
immoral.

>
I claim she is in on it, not consciously in on it though.  But she's in
on it in a deeper level.  For instance, I classify her as an alcoholic.
I don't think her husband is an alcoholic in the same level as she is,
but technically I do include him in the alcoholism classification, too.
He surely needs alcohol, for example, to have the kind of night we
described earlier.  So many people do.

He sounds like he would be right at home in northern europe. No fun there unless
alcohol is in involved.

I know.  But we are not individuals.  Even evolutionary biologists are
getting there already [1].

>
How come we are not individuals? If not individuals, what then?

>
That's too difficult of a conversation.  We're in comp.misc.  Let's call
it a thread and end this.  If you're curious, you could look at two
perspectives: one, which is the evolutionary biology one---there's the
article I linked in a previous post.  Another perspective, more
difficult to parse, is that of someone such as Jiddu Krishnamurti---very
interesting perspective there.

Yes, sounds reasonable. Thank you for the pointers, I'll have a look!

The only logical way out of this dilemma, is to continue to shrink the groups
until they consist of groups with one member, the individual, and then they can
reach the conclusion that we are all individuals, and the only way to
sustainably create a society is if all individuals are respected.

>
Of course.
>
This stuff is all complete nonsense.  Not even worth a discussion.  I
don't even use the word you began your paragraph---I never said it out
loud and never wrote it.  Let's keep it that way. :)

You are a philosopher king!

An expert could likely complicate your life by trying to show that it's
either false or meaningless.  (Don't ask me to do it---I'm just the
student.)  They could attack ``reason for one's existence'' as
meaningless and they could certainly attack ``subjective'' by claiming
that the vast majority of the world is quite objective.

>
Hah... I'll take the challenge! ;) I agree, objectively speaking, that there is
no reason.

>
No reason?  I think there is reason. :)

But can you prove it, objectively? If you can, I think you'll have solved 2500
years of ethical philosophizing. Or, another out, is the way of definition.
Depending on your definitions, it could of course be "made" objective. The
question is then if I accept the definitions or not. =)

But since for me, it is moved into the subjective realm, it is safe
from any attack from "experts" since science, being descriptive, is
not able to "crack" the subjective level.

>
I've seen this before.  It's typical.  You're putting too much precision
into things.  For instance, you said (likely below) that we can't know
for sure; we can infer.  Sure---knowing for sure is too difficult.  We
can infer and that's good.  We all look and the see the Moon out there.
We're sure it's there.  End of the story. :)  It's not subjective.
That's what I mean.

True. When it comes to our senses and using them as "proof" of the external
world, I'm all for it! =)

But, sure, I read Descartes's ``Discourse on the Method''.  I loved
seeing him doubting everything and starting from scratch.  I think that
book has a serious educational philosophy because it gives us the
example of an independent mind (in pretty ordinary steps) organizing
itself and preparing itself for more work.
>
But I also think (in retrospective) it's a bit childish, too.  I don't
need to doubt so much.  I see the intellect being too precious, being
considered more than it really is.  For instance, I just sit and feel
myself.  Here I am---therefore I am.  End of story. :)

Amen! I have an idea where some things, like "the world" don't need proof, since
it happens to you regardless of it you want it or not. It "happens" to you. Same
with time. But it is ill defined. It either clicks with people instantly, or it
doesn't.

It's not subjective.  We all have seen the same stuff.  Of course, from
where you look is different from where I look.  But we're seeing the
same things---evidently.  It's what nearly all of the evidence shows.

Agreed! But boy have I had endless email discussions with people who reject the
proof of their senses.

You can infer based on behaviour, but you can never "know". My subjectivity and
how I experience things, are "locked" into the processing of my brain, as my
cosciousness collides with reality.
>
So yes, you are right, we can infer, but that is not certain knowledge, and in
some cases, such as quantum physics, not even knowledge.

>
You're correct, of course, but see above.

Agreed!

Freud observed himself and made conclusions that apply to everyone else.
Like everyone else, he perhaps made mistakes in the fine details of
things, but he also made huge contributions---from a unitary sample
space.

>
True, but freud these days is disproven. As you say, he did lay a good
foundation for psychology however, and it has progress from him.

>
I don't think he's disproven at all. :) Look, it doesn't matter if a
mathematician got a conjecture wrong---he did a lot of useful work in
his life.  Same with Freud---just his independence from public opinion
makes him a type of Socrates.

I did a lot of good, of course, but his theories about dream interpretation and
the psyche I think are no longer relevant. On the other hand, I am not a
psychologist, so who am I to say? =)

In my notebook, I have no values and no goals, which is all very
liberating.  I've had lots of them.  They were no good.

>
If you have no goals, how do you determine your actions? Surely they are not
just random acts?

>
They're surely not random.  I actually try not to determine.  I listen
closely on a daily basis.  Then I see something I need to do, then I do
it.

Sounds very daoist, very intuitional.

Well, it seems you do have a goal! Maybe you apply the via negativa?
Do not do the wrong thing, and then pursue, at random or based on
preference, the actions that remain after the obviously wrong ones
(based on your values) are eliminated?

>
I think you can put it either way.  My agreeing with your words or
disagreeing won't quite do much of anything to you.  But you can count
on my honesty here.
>
I don't mind saying I have a goal, say.  But I think the best choice of
words is to say I don't.  Because I really don't.  Remember I said I
really wanna have kids?  You can call it a goal. :) But that would be
too simplistic to the point of being false.  It's not quite true that I
want to have kids.  What I want is a healthy life and I think a healthy
life would evolve towards that too.  But you can likely bet that I
wouldn't do anything out of the ordinary to make that happen.  If all I
can see in my life is a disease and death, say, I think I would go down
with it.  Let me put it in terms of chess---lol.  If all I can see is no
way out out of the check mate strategy of my opponent, I make all the
moves that I can until he check mates me.  No desperation.  I think that
living life as it is is quite a victory---to use words that are siblings
of ``goal''.

Hmm, I think you make sense to me.

People often ask me---what would you do in that situation?  The answer
is always---I don't know.  I might know *then*, but certainly not now.
``Oh, come on; please answer it.''  I could give you an answer, even a
serious one; but the fact is that I really only know what I'm going to
really do at the moment I'm doing.  (Humorously, if you want to play
around with fiction, I can come up with lots of answers for you.)

>
It seems, like me, you are not always comfortable with
counterfactuals.

>
A beg your pardon?  I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I agree.  A
counterfactual is something that goes against the facts.  Surely.  I
could never deny that 1 + 1 = 2, say.  I can't even ignore evidence.  I
don't mind leaving questions open at all.  Every now and then it's a
good idea to hang a question mark on all those things we've long taken
for granted.  (Is that Bertrand Russell again?)

Not quite. Counterfactuals are questions such as... "imagine you ate an apple
this morning, would that mean that later in the day you would have a stomach
ache". So when those types of thought experiments are not made with the
intention of high lighting something tangible or empirically provable, I find
them to be useless idle speculation. That's what I was trying to get at.