On Becoming

Definition of the End

Stoicism is known as a eudaimonistic theory, which means that the culmination of human endeavor or ‘end' (telos) is eudaimonia, meaning very roughly "happiness" or “flourishing.” The Stoics defined this end as “living in agreement with nature.” “Nature” is a complex and multivalent concept for the Stoics, and so their definition of the goal or final end of human striving is very rich.

  The first sense of the definition is living in accordance with nature as a whole, i.e. the entire cosmos. Cosmic nature (the universe), the Stoics firmly believed, is a rationally organized and well-ordered system, and indeed coextensive with the will of Zeus, the impersonal god. Consequently, all events that occur within the universe fit within a coherent, well-structured scheme that is providential. Since there is no room for chance within this rationally ordered system, the Stoics' metaphysical determinism further dictated that this cosmic Nature is identical to fate. Thus at this level, "living in agreement with nature" means conforming one’s will with the sequence of events that are fated to occur in the rationally constituted universe, as providentially willed by Zeus.

                 " The Stoics defined the goal in life as living in agreement with nature."

A First most important thing every individual must become Aware of(self aware of)..is to what degree they are in a state of "End-of-history illusion"

The big problem or simply, we where never raised to continue to evolve as far as personal self-awareness,spiritual growth(not religious),never taught self-actualizing,never taught what Liberation from self is,never taught that there is much more to a personal life,then to get a job,have babies,aquire wealth,thats "Happy".
never taught what "Eudaimonia" was ,let alone mean't ("human flourishing" has been proposed as a more accurate translation),
We have to be taught,and teach our child to never stop,on the journey to personal self growth,and understand Learning begets Learning ,I not talking about learning how to do something,like building boats,or science,math,etc.I talking about Learning "what makes ourselves" tic",becoming ourselves,truthly and honestly, and in reality...and that it is a very difficult journey.yet seating on the fence,,will not work.nor buying junk,..materialistic ways,,,only things we need,is enough to live,

The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

End-of-history illusion

The end-of-history illusion is a psychological illusion in which individuals of all ages believe that they have experienced significant personal growth and changes in tastes up to the present moment, but will not substantially grow or mature in the future.[1] Despite recognizing that their perceptions have evolved, individuals predict that their perceptions will remain roughly the same in the future.

The illusion is based on the fact that at any given developmental stage, an individual can observe a relatively low level of maturity in previous stages. The phenomenon affects teenagers, middle-aged individuals, and seniors. In general, people tend to see significant changes in hindsight, but fail to predict that these changes will continue. For example, a 20-year-old's impression of how great a change they will undergo in the next ten years will not be as extreme as a 30-year-old's recollection of the changes they underwent between the ages of 20 and 30. The same phenomenon is true for people of any age.[2] The reason for the illusion has not been studied, although researchers speculate that a resistance or fear of change may be causal.[2]

Psychologist Daniel Gilbert gave a TED talk about the illusion.[3] Gilbert speculates that the phenomenon may occur because of the difficulty of predicting how one will change or a satisfaction with one's current state of being.[4] Gilbert also relates the phenomenon to the way humans perceive time in general.[4]

Heraclitus was famous for his insistence on ever-present change as being the fundamental essence of the universe, as stated in the famous saying, "No man ever steps in the same river twice"[6] (see panta rhei below). This position was complemented by his stark commitment to a unity of opposites in the world, stating that "the path up and down are one and the same". Through these doctrines Heraclitus characterized all existing entities by pairs of contrary properties, whereby no entity may ever occupy a single state at a single time. This, along with his cryptic utterance that "all entities come to be in accordance with this Logos" (literally, "word", "reason", or "account") has been the subject of numerous interpretations.

Leo's video here is very on topic,in a very important way,I highly recommend downloading mp3,and as all his mp3's I listen to them over and over,always at different times,I see things differently

Personal identity

In philosophy, the matter of personal identity[1] deals with such questions as, "What makes it true that a person at one time is the same thing as a person at another time?" or "What kinds of things are we persons?" Generally, personal identity is the unique numerical identity of a person in the course of time.[2][3] That is, the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a person at one time and a person at another time can be said to be the same person, persisting through time;[note 1]

In contemporary metaphysics, the matter of personal identity is referred to as the diachronic problem of personal identity.[note 2][4] The synchronic problem concerns the question of: What features and traits characterize a person at a given time.[note 3] In continental philosophy and in analytic philosophy, enquiry to the nature of Identity is common. Continental philosophy deals with conceptually maintaining identity when confronted by different philosophic propositions, postulates, and presuppositions about the world and its nature.[5][6]

The no-self theory

The "no-self theory"[note 18] holds that the self cannot be reduced to a bundle because the concept of a self is incompatible with the idea of a bundle. Propositionally, the idea of a bundle implies the notion of bodily or psychological relations that do not in fact exist. James Giles, a principal exponent of this view, argues that the no-self or eliminativist theory and the bundle or reductionist theory agree about the non-existence of a substantive self. The reductionist theory, according to Giles, mistakenly resurrects the idea[note 19] of the self[49] in terms of various accounts about psychological relations.[note 20] The no-self theory, on the other hand, "lets the self lie where it has fallen".[50] This is because the no-self theory rejects all theories of the self, even the bundle theory. On Giles' reading, Hume is actually a no-self theorist and it is a mistake to attribute to him a reductionist view like the bundle theory. Hume's assertion that personal identity is a fiction supports this reading, according to Giles.

The Buddhist view of personal identity is also a no-self theory rather than a reductionist theory, because the Buddha rejects attempts to reconstructions in terms of consciousness, feelings, or the body in notions of an eternal/permanent, unchanging Self[51] since our thoughts, personalities and bodies are never the same from moment to moment.[52]

According to this line of criticism, the sense of self is an evolutionary artifact,[note 21] which saves time in the circumstances it evolved for. But sense of self breaks down when considering some events such as memory loss,[note 22] split personality disorder, brain damage, brainwashing, and various thought experiments.[53] When presented with imperfections in the intuitive sense of self and the consequences to this concept which rely on the strict concept of self, a tendency to mend the concept occurs, possibly because of cognitive dissonance.[note 23]

I personally have just simply had a Kinship,with the Idea of " Great Spirit"

I like wearing a "Loin Cloth" too. lol


The Great Spirit, known as Wakan Tanka among the Sioux,[1] Gitche Manitou in Algonquian, and in many Native American and First Nation cultures as The Creator, is the supreme being, God, or a conception of universal spiritual force.[2]

The Great Spirit has at times been conceptualized as an “anthropomorphic celestial deity,”[3] a God of creation, history and eternity,[4] who also takes a personal interest in world affairs and might regularly intervene in the lives of human beings.[3] There have been, and may be, many different speakers for the Great Spirit, each of whom must be dedicated to the preservation of the Native American way of life.[4] The Great Spirit, by way of the spiritual leaders, is looked to for spiritual and cultural guidance on both an individual and community level.[5] Cultural variations among the different Native American Tribes who hold a belief in The Great Spirit have resulted in significantly different stories about this being or these beings, as well as different types of messages being delivered by those seen as prophets or spiritual leaders in these cultures. According to Lakota activist Russell Means, a better translation of Wakan Tanka is the Great Mystery.[6]

Although Plato himself was a polytheist, in his writings, he often presents Socrates as speaking of "the god" in the singular form. He does, however, often speak of the gods in the plural form as well. The Euthyphro dilemma, for example, is formulated as "Is that which is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?"[136]

How to Practice Being Human: An Interview With Dr. Sherry Turkle

February 6, 2018 by Caveat Magister-journal.burningman.org/

Part of the I, ROBOT series

Our problem isn’t that Artificial Intelligence is getting better at being human, it’s that human beings are getting worse at it.

That’s one of the conclusions that MIT psychologist Dr. Sherry Turkle, who has been studying the psychological impact of technology on its users since the dawn of the internet. One of the foremost researchers on the “soft side” of technology, her early work was optimistic about the power of the internet to enable healthy personal and cultural experimentation.

Her recent work is still optimistic, though it comes with a very significant “but.” We cannot be passively accepting of our new technologies: that way lies madness and ruin, or at least verifiable misery.

Instead she says that the challenge of our new technology is not just to manage it better, but to practice being human the face of it. In an interview with Burning Man’s Philosophical Center, she came up with a list of ways to do that:

  • Affirm that yes, your “self” and your data do matter and are worth protecting and supporting
  • Practice having conversations with other human beings
  • Embrace the imperfections of everyday life, rather than trying to make everything seamless
  • Practice showing vulnerability to other people
  • Cultivate non-transactional relationships, where you expect nothing (not even a “like” or a “follow”) from the people you want in your life
  • Expose yourself to perspectives you disagree with

The better we’re able to do these things, the more our humanity can blossom in a digital age and the benefits of our technology outweigh the drawbacks. But if we lose the ability to do these things, if we replace them a digital life, then our humanity atrophies. Because the advantages of a a digital life — convenience, the ability to cocoon oneself, to curate an image of oneself and only interact with the curated images of other selves — turns out to be corrosive in high doses.

“We preach authenticity and in fact online we are living a curated life,” Dr. Turkle says, and technology’s not going to solve that problem for us. We have to practice if we’re going to get it right.

Sherry Turkle’s books include Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet; Simulation and its Discontents; Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other; and Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age.

Plato's Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology

       a. Students of Plato and other ancient philosophers divide philosophy into three parts: Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics. While generally accurate and certainly useful for pedagogical purposes, no rigid boundary separates the parts. Ethics, for example, concerns how one ought to live and focuses on pleasure, virtue, and happiness. Since, according to Plato (and Socrates), virtue and happiness require knowledge, e.g., knowledge of goods and evils, Plato's ethics is inseparable from his epistemology. Epistemology is, broadly speaking, the study of what knowledge is and how one comes to have knowledge. Among the many topics included in epistemology are logic, belief, perception, language, science, and knowledge. (‘Science’ derives from the Latin ‘scientia’, which in turn translates the Greek ‘episteme’, from which English derives ‘epistemology’.) Integral to all of these notions is that they (typically) are directed at something. Words refer to something; perception (aesthesis in Greek) involves perceptibles; knowledge requires a known. In this respect, epistemology cannot be investigated without regard to what there is.

          b. Metaphysics, or alternatively ontology, is that branch of philosophy whose special concern is to answer the question ‘What is there?’ These expressions derive from Aristotle, Plato's student. In a collection of his works, the most detailed treatise on the general topic of things that are comes after a treatise on natural things, ta phusika (from which English derives ‘physics’). Since the Greek for ‘after’ is meta, this treatise is titled ‘Metaphysics’. In that work one finds the famous formula that (first) philosophy studies being—the Greek for which is on—qua being. Hence the account of being is ‘ontology’—the English suffix ‘-ology’ signifying ‘study of’: e.g., biology is the study of living things.

          c.Metaphysics, then, studies the ways in which anything that is can be said or thought to be. Leaving to sciences like biology or physics or mathematics or psychology the task of addressing the special ways in which physical things, or living things, or mathematical objects, e.g., numbers, or souls (minds) come to have the peculiar qualities each, respectively, has, the subject-matter of metaphysics are principles common to everything. Perhaps the most general principle is: to be is to be something. Nothing just exists, we might say. This notion implies that each entity/item/thing has at least some one feature or quality or property. Keeping at a general level, we can provisionally distinguish three factors involved when anything is whatever it is: there is that which bears or has the property, often called the ‘subject’, e.g., Socrates, the number three, or my soul; there is the property which is possessed; e.g., being thin, being odd, and being immortal; and there is the manner or way in which the property is tied or connected to the subject. For instance, while Socrates may be accidentally thin, since he can change, that is, gain and lose weight, three cannot fail to be odd nor, if Plato is correct, can the soul fail to be immortal. The metaphysician, then, considers physical or material things as well as immaterial items such as souls, god and numbers in order to study notions like property, subject, change, being essentially or accidentally.

Some one ,I find interesting,some one that Created their own identity,the way of life they chose to live- Grey Owl - .

Grey Owl was the name British-born Archibald Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938) chose for himself when he took on a fraudulent First Nations identity as an adult. While he achieved fame as a conservationist during his life, after his death the revelation of his non-Native origins and other autobiographical fabrications negatively affected his reputation.

Born in England and migrating to Canada in the first decade of the 20th century, Belaney rose to prominence as a notable author, lecturer, and one of the "most effective apostles of the wilderness".[1] In his studies of the Ojibwe, Belaney learned some native harvesting techniques and trapping skills. The pivotal moment of departure for his early conservation work was when he began his relationship with a young Iroquois woman named Gertrude Bernard, who assisted in his transition from trapper to conservationist

A black-and-white photo of Grey Owl looking sideways Portrait of Grey Owl (1936), by Yousuf Karsh
BornArchibald Belaney
()September 18, 1888
Hastings, England, United Kingdom
DiedApril 13, 1938(1938-04-13) (aged 49)
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada
Cause of deathPneumonia, alcoholism
Resting placePrince Albert National Park
Coordinates: <img width="17" height="17" title="Show location on an interactive map" class="wmamapbutton noprint" alt="" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/WMA_button2b.png/17px-WMA_button2b.png"><a class="external text" href="https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Grey_Owl&amp;params=54_8_49_N_106_28_4_W_"><font><span>  / </span></font></a>
NationalityBritish (later Canadian)
Alma materHastings Grammar School
EmployerDominion Parks Service
Known forEnvironmental conservation
Home townHastings, England
Spouse(s)Angele Egwuna
Constance Holmes
Anahareo (Gertrude Bernard)
Yvonne Perrier
Shirley Dawn (1932–1984)

He played the Role he chose, I think the cognitive dissonance of not revealing,or chosing not to,be what he was "Born as".most likely lead to his alcohol addiction.

I have a lot in common with Grey Owl on the stand point of : I love nature,was a" trapper that chose not to trap" due to a internal care of nature,chose a role other then " what I was" Born As" -Fem-male- ,and became a Alcoholic. I just go lucky a beat Alcoholism,and now after 5 years not having a drink,I realize how terrible alcoholism truly is.-5/25/2018- me

Grey Owl, White Indian

We [Canadians] … are very lucky, in that we have all kinds of places to go within our own boundaries.

Becoming a Carpenter took much training,I continue to study different methods of carpentry,woodworking,building,it never ends-Learning. Another example, I often wonder how I became a "Fem-male",was it -want-,-need-, how I fought the Want,(I see now due to Social Contruct). However in the late 90's when I began routinely engaging in the "Role " as "Fem-male",wanting the men whom I engaged in sex with, treat me as "Femme",it was tough mentally only because of a Society I (we) live in. Now I embrace being a Fem-male, and love being a Fem-male. 5-25-2018