Re: OT: totally off-topic

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

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.

That's a conversation David Bohm held with an audience (in California,
if I recall correctly).  The book is a transcription of the
conversation.  In those dialogs, David Bohm tries to convey what he
means by a ``dialogue''.  While an intellectual discussion is typically
a subtle fight, as Jiddu Krishnamurti (David Bohm's friend) would
describe, Bohm's dialogue is a certain construction among two or more
people in which /listening/ (in the Krishamurti's sense) is key.

I believe it was in an interview that David Bohm gave to Professor
Wilkins---which was an interview meant to write a biography of David
Bohm, which I believe never happened---that David Bohm remarked and
pretty much nobody had ever understood his notion of dialogue, and that
made it even more interesting because it suggests that it has a certain
subtleness that could be escaping people---and then I wonder if it
escaped me too.

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.

Sure, there's no control intended.  If I'm controlling anything, I
should stop this conversation right now and go put my life in order. :)

  The controller is the controlled. -- Jiddu Krishnamurti

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.

I prefer to assume things are alright if they feel alright.  Not if they
/look/ alright, but it /feels/ alright.  I use a differnt verb to try to
capture the subtleness of things.  My neighbors, for example.  If you
just look, they seem alright, but if you look more carefully... It's not
that they are suffering more than everybody else; everybody else seems
to be suffering just about the same.  And people don't complain much
about that.  They complain about the weather, prices, public opinion and
so on, but they don't really complain about how their ``rights'' (if I
may use that word) are being denied by living a life full of stimulants,
boring work, lack of affection, meaningful friendship and so on.

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.

The comparison with parents and children was not to be taken much
farther.  My fault.

There is a fine line between wanting to help, when it is justified,
and being labeled a "Karen".

Lol.  I hadn't heard about ``Karen'' before.  Fun.

All in all, I'm just observing, not judging people or anything.  All I'm
saying about my neighbors doesn't make them anything wrong in any way at
all.  They're surely trying to get things right and so am I.  And I
wouldn't mind anyone saying that I'm the wrong one because I don't even
care at all about who's right or wrong.  I may be wrong, but at the end
of the day I need to carry myself in life as my eyes see it; if I see
that 1 + 1 = 3 and people tell me that it's 2, who can I do?  Should I
believe my brain or their brains?  Now, of course, if they can somehow
make my brain not make the mistake, then I'll get 1 + 1 = 2, too, and
then it will my brain once again tell me what the facts are.

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.

Quite right.  It's what I said before at some point---respect people.
If they want to throw themselves under a train, you have to respect
them.  I don't mean it literally, of course.  Like Noam Chomsky, I do
think we can exercise authority over people if we can easily justify it.
So, yeah, I would stop you from throwing yourself under a train.
Nevertheless, not forever: I couldn't follow you around each day to see
if you're going near the tracks.  It is absurd to me not to concede that
people do have the right to carry their lives however they want. 

So when people question my arguments, say, I don't really bother too
much with some kind of over-explaining.  If you need to over-explain,
it's likely because we're in an intellectual conversation---a subtle
fight.  There's no point.  I am nearly nothing.  I'm like the wind that
blows.  I can blow on someone's face, but what they'll after the wind is
gone is completely on them.

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.

Right.

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.

I see a lot of neighbors here that don't get along.  I am probably a
very respectful person and perhaps also extroverted and perhaps also
usually happy because people do seem to like to see me.  I greet people
whenever I see them.  I tend to think that whenever I see a human being
I should greet that person.  Of course, we can't do it in a crowded
place, but we can surely do it on our street, at work, the places we
usually go and so on.  I do it.  First a greet, then another and another
and... Last Saturday of Carnival I was having ice cream with a neighbor
of mine who is a lady likely in her 80s.  I also met her son who is
likely a bit older than I am.  And there's more of their family in the
street too, but I haven't met them yet.  Another habit of mine is that I
pretty much ask no questions and answer anyone that comes at me with a
brave honesty and kindness.  This could be improperly seen as small
talk, but given that I can be pretty honest with a no-nonsense attitude,
people would lose the wrong impression if they come a bit closer.

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! ;)

I could never really do that myself.  In my teens and 20s, I could stay
up all night, but I never ever liked to go to bed after the Sun was up.
I had to sleep before it was morning; it never felt good otherwise.  I
think the morning light (and being exceptionally tired) didn't let my
body rest too much.  Sometimes I think that by falling asleep with the
body tense, say, kinda keeps it tense throughout the night.  But that's
just a wild thought.

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. ;)

Lol!  Here's a sermon made specially for... Lol.  Just kidding.  To tell
you the truth, I kinda like it a lot, too.  Now, one thing is true---it
tastes better if don't eat it every day, say.  I've had weeks in which I
indulged in it perhaps eating McDonald's every day, along with ice
cream, coffee and other terrible ideas.  Thank God I'm got out of that
alive.  These days, gluten hits me pretty bad.  It still tastes good,
but it doesn't after the food starts taking its effect.  I didn't feel
like that in my teens, but after I started quitting all of this bad
stuff, I can't seem to go back to it at all.

But I know how good it feels.

I'm fairly convinced, though, that the real best stuff is---like you're
doing---to take things in moderation.  Nine McDonald's per year (so long
as they're uniformly distributed in the year) is pretty alright, I
think.  It's roughly one per month.  I think that's enough time for the
body to handle it quite well.  Why do I think that?  Observation.

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. =)

Lol.  Sorry about that! :)

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.

That doesn't sound like someone very wealthy.

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.

Yeah---I suppose there might be cultures out there that drink a lot more
than Brazilians.  I don't think Brazilians do too bad, but it's been
getting worse.  There's an Americanization of the food industry here.
Brazilians are going in on it.  I remember over 10 years ago seeing on
TV that over 52% of Brazil is overweight.  That was unthinkable in the
70s or the 80s, say.

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 [with]---I never
said it out loud and never wrote it.  Let's keep it that way. :)

>
You are a philosopher king!

Lol!

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?

Objectively?  You mean kinda like a proof that the whole world with
stand in awe, like beautiful math proofs like Godel's Theorems?  I
believe I can't and likely wouldn't work on trying.  Why should I do
something that's looking pretty difficult?  Because it's important?  I
kinda doubt it's important.

I think proofs are just constructions.  In math, for example, their role
is quite clear.  I don't even know what it would mean to prove that
there is reason.  I think there's reason because we seem to be doing
some stuff here that we decide to call reason and then, evidently, it
exists in the sense that we conclude it does and move on.

If you can, I think you'll have solved 2500 years of ethical
philosophizing.

I doubt I could do something that would classify as that.

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. =)

So you seem to think that a proof is something like too hard to
resist---like a math proof.  I believe I don't think like that.  A proof
to me is a joint work between a writer and a reader.  If the reader that
catch the spirit, there is no proof.

For a proof to have meaning, it needs to be shared and recognized by
another person.  If you were completely alone in the universe (a
counterfactual and ridiculous proposition), you would have to read you
proof a few times in order to simulate a second or third person sharing
and recognizing your proof.  In other words, thinking is a collective
phenomenon.  When we do it alone, we actually simulate someone else
that's listening and talking back.  (Pretty strong evidence, I find.)

If someone /rejects/ an axiom I came up with or a definition I wrote,
then there's likely little friendship there.  Friendship exists when
people go along with you without judgment.  Rejecting /or accepting/
anything is judgment, which is not friendship.  When someone proposes me
anything, I look at it without accepting it or rejecting it.  (Unless
I'm a really bad mood!)

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.

Excessive refinement in thinking?  They want a kind of super assured
certainty?  I think that's a waste of time.  It's not a waste of time to
care for your math proofs, say, or removing bugs from your programs and
so on.  But rejecting the senses as in I don't know if really exist or
I'm being fooled by an evil genius?  I think that's excessive thinking.
That's when thought escapes from the leash.

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? =)

Most psychologist are so full of nonsense that being one wouldn't help
you here. :) I haven't read The Interpretation of Dreams, but I really
would like to do it.  The book could be wildly wrong, but notice that
nobody seems to have made any advances since then anyhow.

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.

Oh, I see.  We're in total agreement.  I think counterfactual
propositions are useless distractions.