This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

Jay Sherman

Members
  • Content count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

12 Good

About Jay Sherman

  • Rank
    TGL Apprentice
  • Birthday 12/26/1972

Jay Sherman's Activity

  1. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic The problem of sadness   

    Sorry I didn't express it so well.


    Yes, this can be true also.


    To feel hate, to feel anger, one must believe in evil. I would say it is not possible to feel anger any other way.

    No. It's not remotely an excuse.


    People may not go around using the word much (evil) but I would say if anyone is ever feeling anger, they are believing in it. Perhaps they should quit believing in it.

    My point in bothering to bring it up here was just concerning sadness.

    I say perhaps people should quit believing in evil and as a result quit feeling hatred and anger. But it's not something I'm prepared to argue strongly at this time.
    • 0
  2. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic The problem of sadness   

    No, they wouldn't be classified as "evil". This point was contained in the original post which was lost. Sorry. Obviously many actions are causing all kinds of varying degrees of harm and in fact it's very rare one can even know for certain which is the best action.


    Of course there's a distinction. Actually performing a violent act is even worse. That is obvious. Still I think expressing anger at all is also really not such a good thing. Which is also a pretty straightforward and obvious thing.


    I never said that "evil" acts can't be performed without anger. In fact, being "evil" has nothing much really to do with feeling anger. Being "evil" is ultimately about being indifferent.

    It is the person who perceives someone (other than themselves) is "evil" who feels anger and hate as a result.

    The original question concerned deciding to not feel anger and being left with only sadness which unfortunately may be exactly the goal of a person who may mistakenly think I'm performing an "evil" act/s.

    I think there is nothing for it really. One can only hope they aren't trying to punish me (stooping down to using force instead of reason). If they are coming down to force instead of reason, I would only be coming down with them by doing anything other than expressing sadness.
    • 0
  3. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic The problem of sadness   

    There are times when no other options are left and there's nothing for it but to trun to force/hate/ anger. But I think anger is something that was very useful from an evolutionary POV in the far past when the life expectancy was 25 and people were resorting to force far more often. Feeling anger gets the hormones running (contracts blood vessels, etc) and helps perform better physically and be more successful at violence.

    Now, it's still in us to believe in evil and feel angry just as much, yet in this world where we don't actually need to resort to physical violence like we did in the far past, it's really something to be avoided to a great extent.

    Furthermore....

    You can't feel anger unless you believe in evil. 'Evil' is when a person unnecessarily causes harm and just doesn't care. (as opposed to unwittingly causing harm through ignorance/stupidity) I'm thinking that actually all actions that cause harm are ultimately from ignorance/stupidity; that what we call 'evil' is really just a kind of profound stupidity.

    Furthermore.....

    I'm trying to get rid of any hypocrisy that is hiding within me. And I'm quite critical of people who quickly move to force to solve conflicts, (yet in ways actually I resort to "force" also...)

    I do see a good in anger though. The expression of it should communicate to a person that you feel their action is causing harm and you can't see how they can't see that. IOW it's really looking like they just don't care that they're causing harm.

    I guess though that such expressions of anger can only work if the person knows you very very well. And knows that you aren't actually about to resort to violence. Thus they don't need to be feeling fear. Otherwise the very expression of anger has reduced the interaction to one of force to try to get your way.
    • 0
  4. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic The problem of sadness   

    You're assuming I'm speaking of a very important relationship in my life when actually I'm not. The example was just to give a practical application to this philosophical approach. I try to relate my real life to my philosophy and use my real life to spur on my thinking about such things. I'm not remotely in any anguish about any particular relationship in my close personal life.

    It could just be indifference as opposed to the person labeling me as evil. But I can think of multiple current situations (with different people) where it definitely is one or the other.

    I'm trying to stick as much as possible to reason instead of force. And I'm trying to recognize just how much we turn to "force" without realizing it. Expressing anger for instance is turning to force.

    Perhaps pretending I haven't been hurt or not acknowledging that I've been hurt by some action is also, in a sense, turning to force.

    If it is just indifference/selfishness, then of course there's not much that can be done.
    • 0
  5. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Why we can't think totally for ourselves   

    I think that sounds like a decent idea.

    I like 'free gift' instead of 'grace'. Although I think ten year olds probably should go ahead and just learn what grace means...

    To the original post, again, I do think language is hugely important to how people think, I just don't think in the practical sense "we can't think totally for ourselves" is true.

    The words we learn when very young, things like 'mama', 'bottle', etc are simply concepts that are the same across every language. And whatever sounds used for them don't change how we think in any meaningful way.

    I didn't really need to respond here again but it appears I'm close to getting "inactivated" for lack of posts as no one is talking to me. Oh well.
    • 0
  6. Jay Sherman added a topic in Explore   

    The problem of sadness
    To summarize:
    When someone appears to be causing unnecessary harm there are two possible responses that I see: anger or sadness.

    People turn to anger because they believe in 'evil', where it is defined as knowingly causing unnecessary harm and just not caring. If you believe in such 'evil' then you feel it's no use to try to reason with such people and that leaves only force. We believe in evil and thus feel hate and get angry. It does have a somewhat useful result in that I guess we're better able to potentially apply force.

    I've decided though to relabel 'evil' as 'profound stupidity', where the person causing the unnecessary harm is just currently too stupid or ignorant to understand why causing unnecessary harm is a thing to be avoided. And thus trying to keep it somewhere still within the area of reason, and if not always very practically within the realm of reason in the short term, the possibility is still there in the long term thus diminishing any potential feelings of anger.

    That leaves me with just sadness.

    The problem is what if the person performing the harmful act is doing so exactly because they're think that I'm evil and that they have no choice but to punish me (resort to force)? If I show sadness then, I'm only confirming that their actions are having the intended effect?

    I think this probably comes down to me trying to rise up above the usual violent (force over reason) way of our society (behind the pretenses) and unfortunately just putting myself in a position where I'll more easily be hurt by others.

    I'm finding at the moment that it comes down to wanting to convey to someone that I'm really hurt by their actions (as opposed to getting angry at them) but realizing that they probably are just trying to hurt me because they've unconsiously labeled me as "evil", thus telling them so will only reassure them.

    But I don't consider anger an option. Beyond whether or not I really don't believe in it's existence, expressions of anger are nothing but going past reason and resorting to force. When expressing anger you're letting the person in question know that force may be coming soon and thus reducing the interaction to a violent level and hoping that through fear of force they'll change. I've decided I would like to avoid having any part in such things the rest of my life.



    ...excuse me but my original post was lost and I haven't worded it as well the second time around... A third option is just not feeling emotion at all... but I think that's just the result of intellectualizing the emotion right out of it. I think that only occurs in the short term while such thoughts as this are new.
    • 11 replies
    • 2,343 views
  7. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Why we can't think totally for ourselves   

    I'm not sure I agree... I've spent a lot of time deciding that a lot of words were pure nonsense in the english language and simply chucked them and replaced them with combinations of other more simplistic words that I felt were pretty much universal concepts for any language. So to an extent I've deconstructed english. An example would be the word 'evil'.

    The fact that I learned what 'mama', etc meant without using words, I really don't think matters because I don't see what that has to do with thinking for one's self in any practical way.

    Theoretically at least I cautiously think it is possible to overcome how language shapes our thinking. In reality of course I'm not going to build an entire new language and... I suppose I might go my whole life thinking of some important concepts in the wrong way for not being able to see past/through "bad" words.

    Words like 'water', 'ball', etc, I don't see in what practical way they matter at all as to thinking for one's self.
    • 0
  8. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Why we can't be totally open-minded   

    On the one hand, there is a lot wrong with this world. A lot that isn't working. Which would mean being openminded. Not just assimilating to established ways of doing things. Instead looking for better ways.

    But the problem is, is that actually if you don't assimilate, if all on your own you go off in another direction, chances are good that you're not going to do so well.

    You're going to be alienated. Isolated. Unaccepted. I guess if you're a natural masochist that might work out OK. Otherwise you're going to be unhappy.

    There's an old song I really liked called Assimilate by Skinny Puppy. The main line being "...assimilate or (be) annihilate(d)".


    Being too openminded is dangerous.
    • 0
  9. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Music you like...   

    Concerning the Devo cover of Satisfaction, Devo was trying to sound what they considered "post-industrial" which is to say to remove the humanity from the music. Their main theme of course was "devolution" and so they mainly sang stupid songs about getting laid.
    • 0
  10. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Why we can't be totally open-minded   

    Very generally the less happy one is, the more openminded they are.
    • 0
  11. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Introduce yourself here...   

    Thanks. ....message too short. Thank you very much for the hospitality.
    • 0
  12. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Philosophy as Music   

    But liking/not liking music is the way in which we decide whether or not we consider it true.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "inspire" I guess. What does that word mean really? Makes you happy?

    transitive verb1 a: to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration

    That seems to be the most relevant definition here. And I think that's nonsensical. At least to me. Music isn't "divine" IMO (whatever that even means really). Music is perfectly explainable. A bunch of sound vibrations that are or aren't factorable that ignite synethesia within us. (Well there's more to it than that, but that is a heck of a big part of it.)

    So still I don't know what you mean by inspire... Just to get you to think? I could manage that other ways more easily. But as you like.

    And sorry for the necromancy but this forum doesn't have much traffic as mentioned.
    • 0
  13. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic How did you get here?   

    I was on some typically hate filled forum where a person linked to here while expressing disgust for the behavior going on there. I strongly agreed with the sentiment.
    • 0
  14. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Introduce yourself here...   

    I'm Jay Sherman.

    Former scientist, currently training to become a nurse. Ethical vegan. A sort of very disenchanted leftist. As a scientist I invented this: http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/8498/view/print

    A ridiculously simple device that saves a lot of time with air sampling. But I didn't enjoy the people I worked with.......

    Also I write music as a recent hobby:
    http://www.soundclick.com/partialtruth
    http://www.soundclick.com/happydays

    And eventually stories. And my stepfather always complains that I'm trying to reinvent the wheel; which is to say that I have spent a lot of time deconstructing things (philosophically speaking, not hard science) and tried to figure out better ways to do things. (Concerning social norms and so on.)
    • 0
  15. Jay Sherman added a post in a topic Not looking out for others   

    I think it can come down to a simple refusal to truly recognize a world that one can't stand as actually being valid. If you start playing by its rules, then you've validated it.

    And is that rational? It's a sort of definition of insane I think, although it's what (I think) I (usually) do (sometimes) provided the consequences aren't too obviously dire.
    • 0