Pagan morality

[Maia]

+++Yep, we can almost always count on that. In fact, that may well be why what is most important to me here is the extent to which a community practices one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. In other words, it's one thing for someone to tell you what to do and you have to do it or else be punished. Or doing what everyone else does because they claim to have fornd the One True Path. You become either "one of us" or you deal with the consequences of being an outlier..."one of them". With democracy, however, you might not get everything you want in regard to any particular issue, but then most do get something instead of nothing.+++

What was it that Churchill said about democracy? That it's the worst system imaginable, apart from all the others. Or words to that effect, anyway.

+++Or perhaps there are no issues that can be resolved. Short of, say, the second coming of Christ? Or, even more miraculously, [perhaps], a brand-new deontological assessment that puts Kant's own to shame?+++

Maybe the issues that can't be resolved just, over time, become less important, and new issues take their place. Who cares, these days, about the issues that many thousands died because of, during the Reformation, for example?

+++Yes, but this isn't like the cases where the teacher becomes involved with a child. The students in the class were all adults. Young adults perhaps but not children.+++

When I was at school there was still talk of an incident that happened a few years before I started, when one of the male teachers was sacked for becoming romantically involved with one of the girls from the sixth form, which would make her somewhere between 16 and 18. Not technically illegal, I suppose, since 16 is the legal age of consent, but a sacking offence, nevertheless. Years later, long after I had left, the same teacher apparently turned up, unexpectedly, to one of the school reunions, with his wife, the wife in question being the same person he was sacked over.

+++Is that fair? Maybe. There really isn't all that much I'm familiar with in regard to the song. If you Google "lionel richie hello song and blind community" nothing pops up. Or nothing I could find to connect the dots.

One take on it:

The song "Hello" by Lionel Richie, released in 1984, is often interpreted as a romantic ballad about longing and communication. The music video features Richie as he attempts to connect with a woman through a series of emotional scenes. While some viewers might interpret the video as having elements of obsession or stalking, it is generally viewed in the context of its time as a heartfelt expression of love and yearning.

And, basically, that's how I reacted to it as well. Whatever the difference in their ages, they seemed genuinely to love each other. But then when you are dealing with music videos it's not all that unusual for things not to be as they seem.+++

Judging by the lyrics alone, I think it's fine. Not my favourite love song, but not too bad, either.

+++As with most things of this nature, many refuse to believe it's a "real thing" because they have absolutely no experience with it. It's for bats and dolphins. Most sighted people will click their tongues, and think, "no way!"+++

Yes, I get that reaction quite a lot. When I tell them there's a large tree about ten metres ahead and a little to the right, for example. And I must admit to occasionally showing off about it, too.

+++Well, so far, to the best of my knowledge, no one calls you Batty here. On the other hand, given just how astonishing the behaviors of bats can be in [at times] a pitch-black world, I suspect some blind people might consider it...a compliment?+++

I imagine bats are really cute, too. I've heard them described as flying mice, and what could be cuter than that?

+++This from WebMD:

"How Does Echolocation Work on Humans?

Surprisingly, echolocation can be learned as a skill. Experts have found that the human brain has areas that are dedicated to processing echoes. They also estimate that about 20 to 30 percent of blind people learn how to echolocate at some point in their lives.

While animals like bats and dolphins have specific sounds that they use for echolocating, humans can pick whatever sound they want to use as their sonar emission. Finger snaps, mouth clicks, and humming are some of the most common echolocating noises. Blind people also often use short and quick cane taps to echolocate.

Studies show that echolocation in humans can be so precise that they can distinguish textures such as metal through sound. Similarly, experts at echolocating can precisely identify minimal gaps between objects placed more than a meter away."

Here's another video that attempts to explain it: https://youtu.be/2IKT2akh0Ng?si=z_gNDUvG3OutJX0u+++

Any sound will work, to a greater or lesser extent, but I find a few quick clicks of my tongue is enough to gauge pretty much anything. It also, incidentally, tells me what's behind me, too, though not in as much detail. And above and below, of course, like when I'm in a room. And yes, I can also distinguish between textures. I can tell the difference between glass, for example, and wood, and brick, in a window, fence, or wall. I don't use my cane for echolocating, though, as I prefer to keep it touching the ground, sweeping it from side to side as I'm walking, rather than tapping it on and off. I suppose I could do it like that if I was standing still, but with my tongue I can do it while I'm moving, so for me, at least, it's much more useful, and it's what I learnt how to do without even thinking about it, from the earliest age.

+++There are actually two books with that title. Peter Robinson's psychological thriller and then this one: https://youtu.be/HAwPFHusEEQ?si=EgO7MIjevLVwIp9Y

In fact, when I first Googled it I got the Ruth Ashby book. I couldn't figure out what it had to do with your description. I firgured there must be another book with the same title. Bingo.

Ironically, back when I was a budding novelist, I was rather adept with the parts that revolved around dialogue...characters interacting philosophically, intellectually, emotionally, psychologically. What I was terrible at was everything else. In particular attempts to describe the world they lived in when they weren't interacting. The visual parts in other words!

I bought the book from Amazon. I've always enjoyed psychological thrillers because the focus is always on the extraordinary complexity of human psychology itself.+++

The Ruth Ashby one is clearly a children's book, so I hate to think what would happen if some unsuspecting parent ordered the wrong one by mistake!

When you've read it, let me know, as I'd be very happy to mull over any and all issues raised by it, and indeed, I welcome the opportunity to do so. As I said, I found it powerfully moving, far more so than anything I've read for a very long time, even bringing me to tears.

+++How about this. You focus in on one particular aspect of the story and create a short story out of it. Then take this to those you value the opinions of and see how they react.+++

Maybe, yes.

+++Not sure if I understand you. If you are born blind and wish to pursue sexual relationships with others, what else is there physically but touch and smell and taste and sound? How could they not understand how important they are to you? In fact, because sighted people are likely to put most of the emphasis on the visual, they become that much less adept at appreciating the sexual depth of the other senses.+++

Indeed, it's all just natural. The physical side of relationships is very important.

+++From Abilities Magazine: "It is a common misconception that blind people do not experience sexual attraction because of their inability to see, but this could not be further from the truth. In reality, blind people have happy and successful sexual relationships just like everyone else,"

It's just that they will be reacting to it given their own individual frame of mind. One that does not involve sight. Besides, orgasms will no doubt feel just as good to blind men and women.+++

It astonishes me that anyone could possibly think otherwise. We are, after all, only human.

+++And, of course, you can't help but wonder what to make of this. With God and other religions, many are able to accept nature [even at its most ferocious] because they are able to believe as well in immortality and salvation. Also, given the assumption that God is able to make sense of it all -- explain it all -- given His mysterious ways.

Just out of curiosity, when you are out among other Pagans, are attempts made to convince you that there is an afterlife. Yes, it is nothing short of natural that we die. And some are able to accept that. I'm just not one of them. Yet.+++

A lot of Pagans, perhaps even a majority, tend to believe in reincarnation of one sort or another, though none of them, in my experience, ever try to push their beliefs onto other Pagans. It's very much a personal thing, and Pagans accept this. There are also atheist Pagans, and Pagans who hold other beliefs. And there are many who are happy to reserve judgement, which I suppose is the camp that I fall into.

+++Yes, that brings me closer to understanding. You don't have to see "bricks, broken glass, bits of wood sticking up" to experience what they can do to you in the rubble of ruined buildings.+++

Absolutely.

+++Yes, most people I've spoken to about dreams marvel at just how surreal they can sometimes become. Why don't mine? Again: damned if I know.+++

We are all different, I suppose.

+++Well, we only have so much control over what we dream. I think I am rather lucky though because in my dreams I get to interact with people I once knew and loved. In my dreams, I'm back with my sister and friends and relatives and lovers and people I worked with, went to school with, grew up with, etc..

Hell, if I could figure out a way to dream 24/7, I might actually do it.+++

Not sure if that would be a particularly healthy thing to do, but why not, if that's what you want?

+++Again, back to the pods. You're in one, I'm in the other. I experience your dreams, you experience mine. In the interim though we can only do our best to understand things that we experience differently. Or, perhaps, that's the way it seems to me here and now because I know so little about blindness.+++

Well, as the resident expert on blindness, I am, of course, always happy to discuss it, and in so doing, do my bit, however small, in dispelling any myths and misconceptions about it that still linger.

+++That's the thing though. In reading the accounts of your travels the descriptions don't seem all that different from something that a sighted person might encompass. Unless, again, I'm in way over my head "here and now" in understanding these things.+++

Glad to hear that, as it proves my writing skills aren't too bad, after all.

+++Just out of curiosity, how do you react to this: https://wheresyourdog.com/2016/03/25/yo ... n-because/

These are things that popped into my head, as well. Though, as I believe I noted before, I'm just one of those people who has always embraced the the view that opposites do not attract.+++

Whatever the pros and cons of the matter, the vast majority of blind people do, in fact, end up with blind partners. The primary reason for this, I'm sure, is because most blind people mainly tend to socialise with other blind people, too, so they are the only ones they're going to meet. Indeed, this is a very good example of the same insular, incestuous nature of the blind community that made me decide, on leaving school, to have as little to do with it as possible. I have never, ever once regretted that decision, and I have no doubt that my life is far better because of it.

+++I think that's a good thing. On the other hand, it's not like I go out of my way trying not to be normal. Instead, all I can do is to accept that in many respects my own life has been lived off the beaten path.+++

In other words, just be yourself.

+++And that's always what counts in the end. I live my life from day to day to day basically on my own terms. But not in a selfish sense. Hard to explain.+++

Sounds like the best way of doing it.

+++Now, if only we could pin down what it means to be blind morally, politically and...philosophically?+++

I'm probably quite blind philosophically, as I'm no expert on the subject, and politically, well, I'm fairly conservative, to be honest, which many would say is being blind. I like to think that I'm definitely not blind morally, though.

[iambiguous]

Yep, we can almost always count on that. In fact, that may well be why what is most important to me here is the extent to which a community practices one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. In other words, it's one thing for someone to tell you what to do and you have to do it or else be punished. Or doing what everyone else does because they claim to have fornd the One True Path. You become either "one of us" or you deal with the consequences of being an outlier..."one of them". With democracy, however, you might not get everything you want in regard to any particular issue, but then most do get something instead of nothing.

What was it that Churchill said about democracy? That it's the worst system imaginable, apart from all the others. Or words to that effect, anyway.

The best of all possible worlds, as it were. And that's what it may well be. Which is why I tend to focus more on the historical reality of moral and political repression among those communities that practice one or another rendition of objectivism. You do things their way because, if you don't, they have the political power to do all sorts of nasty things to you.

Or perhaps there are no issues that can be resolved. Short of, say, the second coming of Christ? Or, even more miraculously, [perhaps], a brand-new deontological assessment that puts Kant's own to shame?

Maybe the issues that can't be resolved just, over time, become less important, and new issues take their place. Who cares, these days, about the issues that many thousands died because of, during the Reformation, for example?

Of course, this will be mean many different things to many different people. Look at all those who have died in Gaza and Israel because the issue there revolves around which rendition of the God of Abraham is the one true God. That they are slaughtering each other in the name of the same God almost never comes up in the news.

Yes, but this isn't like the cases where the teacher becomes involved with a child. The students in the class were all adults. Young adults perhaps but not children.

When I was at school there was still talk of an incident that happened a few years before I started, when one of the male teachers was sacked for becoming romantically involved with one of the girls from the sixth form, which would make her somewhere between 16 and 18. Not technically illegal, I suppose, since 16 is the legal age of consent, but a sacking offence, nevertheless. Years later, long after I had left, the same teacher apparently turned up, unexpectedly, to one of the school reunions, with his wife, the wife in question being the same person he was sacked over.

Not unlike the Mary Kay Letourneau case here in America. What gets particularly tricky here [at times] is that the law has to draw the line somewhere when it comes to sex and children. It's just that some of the students involved might be considerably more precocious and sexually mature than others. Over and over and over again in regard to things like this it becomes a matter of where the line is drawn. And who gets to draw it.

Then the part where some note that nature itself is inclined toward installing puberty in girls as young as 8 and in boys as young as 9.

Is that fair? Maybe. There really isn't all that much I'm familiar with in regard to the song. If you Google "Lionel Richie hello song and blind community" nothing pops up. Or nothing I could find to connect the dots.

One take on it:

The song "Hello" by Lionel Richie, released in 1984, is often interpreted as a romantic ballad about longing and communication. The music video features Richie as he attempts to connect with a woman through a series of emotional scenes. While some viewers might interpret the video as having elements of obsession or stalking, it is generally viewed in the context of its time as a heartfelt expression of love and yearning.

And, basically, that's how I reacted to it as well. Whatever the difference in their ages, they seemed genuinely to love each other. But then when you are dealing with music videos it's not all that unusual for things not to be as they seem.

Judging by the lyrics alone, I think it's fine. Not my favourite love song, but not too bad, either.

So, just out of curiosity, what is your favorite love song. Mine? A toss up between "Something" by George Harrison and Foreigner's "I "Want To Know What Love Is".

As with most things of this nature, many refuse to believe it's a "real thing" because they have absolutely no experience with it. It's for bats and dolphins. Most sighted people will click their tongues, and think, "no way!"

Yes, I get that reaction quite a lot. When I tell them there's a large tree about ten metres ahead and a little to the right, for example. And I must admit to occasionally showing off about it, too.

It still seems remarkable to me because my own tongue clicks barely get much beyond my mouth.

Here's a website that might interest some here:

Teach Yourself to Echolocate
A beginner’s guide to navigating with sound. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-to-echolocate

Well, so far, to the best of my knowledge, no one calls you Batty here. On the other hand, given just how astonishing the behaviors of bats can be in [at times] a pitch-black world, I suspect some blind people might consider it...a compliment?

I imagine bats are really cute, too. I've heard them described as flying mice, and what could be cuter than that?

Actually, bats often scare the hell out of people. And that's because cute isn't a word they would use to describe them. Especially the vampire bats. They may have the body of a mouse but their face is downright blood-curdling. But then I'm back to being an abject failure at describing things like this. Even if the bat is right there in front of me I'll screw up the description.

This from WebMD:

"How Does Echolocation Work on Humans?

Surprisingly, echolocation can be learned as a skill. Experts have found that the human brain has areas that are dedicated to processing echoes. They also estimate that about 20 to 30 percent of blind people learn how to echolocate at some point in their lives.

While animals like bats and dolphins have specific sounds that they use for echolocating, humans can pick whatever sound they want to use as their sonar emission. Finger snaps, mouth clicks, and humming are some of the most common echolocating noises. Blind people also often use short and quick cane taps to echolocate.

Studies show that echolocation in humans can be so precise that they can distinguish textures such as metal through sound. Similarly, experts at echolocating can precisely identify minimal gaps between objects placed more than a meter away."

Here's another video that attempts to explain it: https://youtu.be/2IKT2akh0Ng?si=z_gNDUvG3OutJX0u

Any sound will work, to a greater or lesser extent, but I find a few quick clicks of my tongue is enough to gauge pretty much anything. It also, incidentally, tells me what's behind me, too, though not in as much detail. And above and below, of course, like when I'm in a room. And yes, I can also distinguish between textures. I can tell the difference between glass, for example, and wood, and brick, in a window, fence, or wall. I don't use my cane for echolocating, though, as I prefer to keep it touching the ground, sweeping it from side to side as I'm walking, rather than tapping it on and off. I suppose I could do it like that if I was standing still, but with my tongue I can do it while I'm moving, so for me, at least, it's much more useful, and it's what I learnt how to do without even thinking about it, from the earliest age.

This just popped into my head...

Are there any actual competitions within the blind community itself to see who might be the best at it? There's a YouTube video of exactly that from China: https://youtu.be/nbuyFCevjAY?si=3ZOiS5QPiBp6ogsy

"Chen Yan from China and Dave from Germany are both visually impaired, but can identify the materials from which objects are made by clicking their mouths or clapping their hands, and listening for the echoes. Can they tell what panda toys placed inside cars are made from?"

Unfortunately, it's all in Chinese with English subtitles.

Ironically, back when I was a budding novelist, I was rather adept with the parts that revolved around dialogue...characters interacting philosophically, intellectually, emotionally, psychologically. What I was terrible at was everything else. In particular attempts to describe the world they lived in when they weren't interacting. The visual parts in other words!

I bought the book from Amazon. I've always enjoyed psychological thrillers because the focus is always on the extraordinary complexity of human psychology itself.

When you've read it, let me know, as I'd be very happy to mull over any and all issues raised by it, and indeed, I welcome the opportunity to do so. As I said, I found it powerfully moving, far more so than anything I've read for a very long time, even bringing me to tears.

Amazon has shipped the book and estimates I'll receive it in a week or so.

Not sure if I understand you. If you are born blind and wish to pursue sexual relationships with others, what else is there physically but touch and smell and taste and sound? How could they not understand how important they are to you? In fact, because sighted people are likely to put most of the emphasis on the visual, they become that much less adept at appreciating the sexual depth of the other senses.

Indeed, it's all just natural. The physical side of relationships is very important.

On the other hand, some argue that anything we can physically do is natural because we are ourselves an inherent part of nature. Instead, the better distinction, they suggest, might be between natural and normal. Every culture has their own rendition of that but in our modern world with communication technologies [like the internet] it's easier to have access to all of the many different ways in which others think about the same things that we do...but from any number of conflicting perspectives.

From Abilities Magazine: "It is a common misconception that blind people do not experience sexual attraction because of their inability to see, but this could not be further from the truth. In reality, blind people have happy and successful sexual relationships just like everyone else,"

It's just that they will be reacting to it given their own individual frame of mind. One that does not involve sight. Besides, orgasms will no doubt feel just as good to blind men and women.

It astonishes me that anyone could possibly think otherwise. We are, after all, only human.

On the other hand...
47 Terms That Describe Sexual Attraction, Behavior, and Orientation https://www.healthline.com/health/diffe ... uality#a-c

With human sexuality, practically anything goes. I know there isn't much that I haven't at least tried. But within any particular community, one way or another, there will be rules of behavior such that doing some things will get you rewarded and other things will get you punished. Natural and normal can easily become hopelessly entangled.

And, of course, you can't help but wonder what to make of this. With God and other religions, many are able to accept nature [even at its most ferocious] because they are able to believe as well in immortality and salvation. Also, given the assumption that God is able to make sense of it all -- explain it all -- given His mysterious ways.

Just out of curiosity, when you are out among other Pagans, are attempts made to convince you that there is an afterlife. Yes, it is nothing short of natural that we die. And some are able to accept that. I'm just not one of them. Yet.

A lot of Pagans, perhaps even a majority, tend to believe in reincarnation of one sort or another, though none of them, in my experience, ever try to push their beliefs onto other Pagans. It's very much a personal thing, and Pagans accept this.

I suppose, for many, reincarnation is better than oblivion. It just never had all that much appeal for me. And that's because if there is an afterlife most would prefer [by far] that "I" be a part of it. You might come back as a cockroach but if "I" is gone forever...?

Though to the extent that among Pagans the personal beliefs of others are respected, that's always the best of all possible worlds from my frame of mind. But sooner or later one or another set of rules have to be enacted in any given community [Pagan or otherwise] and who gets to decide what those rules are?

There are also atheist Pagans, and Pagans who hold other beliefs. And there are many who are happy to reserve judgement, which I suppose is the camp that I fall into.

Me too. But for different reasons. I find myself reserving judgment because my own judgments pertaining to moral and political values are still entangled in a fractured and fragmented frame of mind. All I can then suggest is that the best of all possible worlds revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Yes, that brings me closer to understanding. You don't have to see "bricks, broken glass, bits of wood sticking up" to experience what they can do to you in the rubble of ruined buildings.

Absolutely.

On the other hand, there will always be those who point out that if you could see the bricks and broken glass and bits of wood sticking up amidst the rubble...

Yes, most people I've spoken to about dreams marvel at just how surreal they can sometimes become. Why don't mine? Again: damned if I know.

We are all different, I suppose.

And it's in regard to respecting those differences that I have always embraced democracy and the rule of law. It's one thing to note that in many important respects we are all different and another thing all together to come up with the least dysfunctional manner in which to sustain the community taking into account all those differences.

Well, we only have so much control over what we dream. I think I am rather lucky though because in my dreams I get to interact with people I once knew and loved. In my dreams, I'm back with my sister and friends and relatives and lovers and people I worked with, went to school with, grew up with, etc..

Hell, if I could figure out a way to dream 24/7, I might actually do it.

Not sure if that would be a particularly healthy thing to do, but why not, if that's what you want?

That's what I want from time to time, but wanting something that you can never have is, well, clearly not healthy. Some drive themselves crazy, or drive everyone else crazy by blaming them for that.

Again, back to the pods. You're in one, I'm in the other. I experience your dreams, you experience mine. In the interim though we can only do our best to understand things that we experience differently. Or, perhaps, that's the way it seems to me here and now because I know so little about blindness.

Well, as the resident expert on blindness, I am, of course, always happy to discuss it, and in so doing, do my bit, however small, in dispelling any myths and misconceptions about it that still linger.

Here are some of those misconceptions: https://lvib.org/programs/top-10-miscon ... nd-people/

Though I suspect that within the blind community itself there are going to be any number of conflicts that, one way or another, must be dealt with "for all practical purposes".

Then the part that revolves around whether or not there is such a thing as a "blind culture".

For example: https://www.acb.org/blindness-culture-r ... who-we-are

That's the thing though. In reading the accounts of your travels the descriptions don't seem all that different from something that a sighted person might encompass. Unless, again, I'm in way over my head "here and now" in understanding these things.

Glad to hear that, as it proves my writing skills aren't too bad, after all.

Your writing skills are exceptional. And if you are passionate about certain things in life, you can use those skills in order to communicate them to others.

Just out of curiosity, how do you react to this: https://wheresyourdog.com/2016/03/25/yo ... n-because/

These are things that popped into my head, as well. Though, as I believe I noted before, I'm just one of those people who has always embraced the view that opposites do not attract.

Whatever the pros and cons of the matter, the vast majority of blind people do, in fact, end up with blind partners. The primary reason for this, I'm sure, is because most blind people mainly tend to socialise with other blind people, too, so they are the only ones they're going to meet.

Pros and cons. No getting around them, of course. It just seems the best of all possible worlds would include both sighted and blind friends. On the other hand, your own life is clearly one that you are fully content with just the way it is.

Indeed, this is a very good example of the same insular, incestuous nature of the blind community that made me decide, on leaving school, to have as little to do with it as possible. I have never, ever once regretted that decision, and I have no doubt that my life is far better because of it.

That's all that need be said, of course. In other words, that says it all. Perhaps what is really going though my head right now is in imagining going blind myself...how scary that would be. I'd need the empathy that comes with being around others who are also blind.

But then the part that separates you from most other blind people: the fact that "only 1 to 2 babies out of every 100,000 have LCA, but there are as many as 27 genetic mutations that could lead to it. Other potential causes of congenital blindness include things like: maternal cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy. congenital rubella syndrome." healthline

Now, if only we could pin down what it means to be blind morally, politically and...philosophically?

I'm probably quite blind philosophically, as I'm no expert on the subject, and politically, well, I'm fairly conservative, to be honest, which many would say is being blind. I like to think that I'm definitely not blind morally, though.

Some here accuse me of being blind philosophically as well. Why? Because I refuse to stay up in the intellectual clouds with them pinning down the exact definition and meaning of words technically so that their theoretical assessments of meaning, morality and metaphysics can be sustained up in the intellectual clouds.

As for your conservative political convictions, we think about that differently I suspect. From my frame of mind, liberal or conservative values are largely rooted existentially in dasein. Only unlike you "here and now", I don't have access to an intuitive, spiritual, Intrinsic Self enabling me to transcend dasein. I'm still basically fractured and fragmented.

I just don't argue that others ought to be as well. On the contrary, what I wouldn't give to be anchored myself to one or another One True path.

[Maia]

+++The best of all possible worlds, as it were. And that's what it may well be. Which is why I tend to focus more on the historical reality of moral and political repression among those communities that practice one or another rendition of objectivism. You do things their way because, if you don't, they have the political power to do all sorts of nasty things to you.+++

The most interesting historical cultures are the ones that weren't like that, where ideals of personal freedom, however imperfectly realised, played a role. At its best, Classical civilisation went at least some way towards this, though by our standards it would still have seemed unbearably repressive, especially if you happened to be a slave.

+++Of course, this will be mean many different things to many different people. Look at all those who have died in Gaza and Israel because the issue there revolves around which rendition of the God of Abraham is the one true God. That they are slaughtering each other in the name of the same God almost never comes up in the news.+++

I think on the Muslim side, that's certainly the case, but on the Jewish side it's more of a claim over their ancestral homeland. Israel is a secular state that allows freedom of religion.

+++Not unlike the Mary Kay Letourneau case here in America. What gets particularly tricky here [at times] is that the law has to draw the line somewhere when it comes to sex and children. It's just that some of the students involved might be considerably more precocious and sexually mature than others. Over and over and over again in regard to things like this it becomes a matter of where the line is drawn. And who gets to draw it.

Then the part where some note that nature itself is inclined toward installing puberty in girls as young as 8 and in boys as young as 9.+++

Any line will be arbitrary, but the alternative of not having one is much worse, and it's possible to be flexible in enforcing it. As I understand it, no 16-year-old would be prosecuted for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old, for example, and while the age of consent is 16 in the UK, one still needs parental permission in order to marry till the age of 18, and similarly, for people in positions of authority, such as teachers or doctors, there may be legal repercussions if the individual in question is under 18, and under their duty of care. I don't know if the teacher at my school was ever prosecuted, though I suppose if the girl refused to make a complaint or give evidence, there would be little they could do, anyway. The can of worms aspect of that particular case would only have been exacerbated by the fact that he was a teacher at a boarding school for the blind, though I don't know if he was blind or VI himself. Some members of staff are, but by no means all. The fact that he and the girl, by then his wife, showed up at a school reunion ten, fifteen, or however many years it was later, still together, presumably means that there were no lasting adverse consequences for him. I do have to wonder why they went, though. Perhaps they just wanted to make a point, or something.

+++So, just out of curiosity, what is your favorite love song. Mine? A toss up between "Something" by George Harrison and Foreigner's "I "Want To Know What Love Is".+++

As soon as I posted it, I knew you'd ask that! There are lots and lots, of course, but if I really had to pick one, I suppose it would be Willy O' Winsbury by Pentangle, which is among my most favourite songs anyway, whether love songs or otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwqP_yoszCE

And then there's The Story in Your Eyes by the Moody Blues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qJ2GHXzho

+++It still seems remarkable to me because my own tongue clicks barely get much beyond my mouth.

Here's a website that might interest some here:

Teach Yourself to Echolocate
A beginner’s guide to navigating with sound. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/h ... olocate+++

I think it might be a bit optimistic, to be honest, to expect people to be able to learn how to do it properly as adults, though always possible, I suppose.

+++Actually, bats often scare the hell out of people. And that's because cute isn't a word they would use to describe them. Especially the vampire bats. They may have the body of a mouse but their face is downright blood-curdling. But then I'm back to being an abject failure at describing things like this. Even if the bat is right there in front of me I'll screw up the description.+++

That was a pretty vivid description. I still think they're probably really cute, though, even with the blood-curdling features.

+++This just popped into my head...

Are there any actual competitions within the blind community itself to see who might be the best at it? There's a YouTube video of exactly that from China: https://youtu.be/nbuyFCevjAY?si=3ZOiS5QPiBp6ogsy

"Chen Yan from China and Dave from Germany are both visually impaired, but can identify the materials from which objects are made by clicking their mouths or clapping their hands, and listening for the echoes. Can they tell what panda toys placed inside cars are made from?"

Unfortunately, it's all in Chinese with English subtitles.+++

I can just imagine the reaction of the RNIB to a suggestion like that. The answer is a definite no, sadly, though I think it would be really good fun. Because only a minority of blind people can do it, or at least do it well, they don't really encourage it or talk about it very much. Presumably because they think it's unfair on those who can't.

+++Amazon has shipped the book and estimates I'll receive it in a week or so.+++

I'll look forward to discussing it. I've started re-reading it, in fact, which I almost never do so soon after finishing something, and have been picking up on things that I didn't notice the first time round, clues as to what's actually going on, though to be fair, it's pretty obvious from very early on, no doubt deliberately so. It was to me, anyway. The book has a sequel, of sorts, called Friend of the Devil, written many years later, but this is a very different style of book, being part of Peter Robinson's long series of police crime novels featuring a character named Inspector Banks. It's fine, as far as it goes, and crucially, it continues the story presented in Caedmon's Song up to the present day, or at least the present day when it was written, which was, I believe, 2007. So if you find yourself being so moved by the events of Caedmon's Song that you want to know what happened afterwards, Friend of the Devil is essential reading. But if not, that's ok, as Caedmon's Song works perfectly well as a standalone story, as, indeed, it was originally intended.

+++On the other hand, some argue that anything we can physically do is natural because we are ourselves an inherent part of nature. Instead, the better distinction, they suggest, might be between natural and normal. Every culture has their own rendition of that but in our modern world with communication technologies [like the internet] it's easier to have access to all of the many different ways in which others think about the same things that we do...but from any number of conflicting perspectives.+++

That's true, and that fact itself, I would say, is perfectly natural, given human nature, which is essentially tribal. That's how we have evolved, to function as social animals in a tribe, with its own norms of behaviour.

+++On the other hand...
47 Terms That Describe Sexual Attraction, Behavior, and Orientation https://www.healthline.com/health/diffe ... uality#a-c

With human sexuality, practically anything goes. I know there isn't much that I haven't at least tried. But within any particular community, one way or another, there will be rules of behavior such that doing some things will get you rewarded and other things will get you punished. Natural and normal can easily become hopelessly entangled.+++

I'm probably rather boringly pedestrian, in that case, certainly compared to a lot of Pagans I know, some of whom will literally shag almost anything that moves, given half a chance. Though, while we're on the subject of confessions, you may have noticed that when I mentioned, before, that all my sexual partners have been sighted, I was careful to avoid saying that they were all male...

But by the same token I suppose that I didn't actually specify that they were all human, either. So, just to set the record straight, they were indeed all human.

And when I say "all" I actually mean four, lest anyone get the wrong idea about me.

+++I suppose, for many, reincarnation is better than oblivion. It just never had all that much appeal for me. And that's because if there is an afterlife most would prefer [by far] that "I" be a part of it. You might come back as a cockroach but if "I" is gone forever...?

Though to the extent that among Pagans the personal beliefs of others are respected, that's always the best of all possible worlds from my frame of mind. But sooner or later one or another set of rules have to be enacted in any given community [Pagan or otherwise] and who gets to decide what those rules are?+++

No one, in my experience, when it comes to personal beliefs.

+++Me too. But for different reasons. I find myself reserving judgment because my own judgments pertaining to moral and political values are still entangled in a fractured and fragmented frame of mind. All I can then suggest is that the best of all possible worlds revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise.+++

Personally, I don't think it matters what we believe about an afterlife. It'll just happen anyway, or not, as the case may be. So why worry about it?

+++On the other hand, there will always be those who point out that if you could see the bricks and broken glass and bits of wood sticking up amidst the rubble...+++

Then I might have avoided them. It was, of course, just a dream, though.

+++And it's in regard to respecting those differences that I have always embraced democracy and the rule of law. It's one thing to note that in many important respects we are all different and another thing all together to come up with the least dysfunctional manner in which to sustain the community taking into account all those differences.+++

I suppose that's the story of human history.

+++That's what I want from time to time, but wanting something that you can never have is, well, clearly not healthy. Some drive themselves crazy, or drive everyone else crazy by blaming them for that.+++

Yes, wanting something you can never have is a complete waste of time.

+++Here are some of those misconceptions: https://lvib.org/programs/top-10-miscon ... nd-people/

Though I suspect that within the blind community itself there are going to be any number of conflicts that, one way or another, must be dealt with "for all practical purposes".

Then the part that revolves around whether or not there is such a thing as a "blind culture".

For example: https://www.acb.org/blindness-culture-r ... who-we-are+++

The one about blind people all being good musicians is amusing, as I'm certainly not, though I love listening to music, of course. As to whether there's a blind culture or not, I would say that if there is, it's a pretty depressing one. There's also the usual ridiculous "woke" (or what used to be called politically correct) arguments about not saying blind people, but rather, people who are blind, thereby emphasising that they are people, first. I think such rubbish is truly laughable, to be honest, but also has a potentially damaging effect when sighted people accidentally say the supposedly wrong thing, and are made to feel guilty for it. Aren't sighted people, or at least some of them, already nervous enough about saying the wrong thing in front of blind people? It's just stupid trying to make things worse, and counter-productive.

+++Pros and cons. No getting around them, of course. It just seems the best of all possible worlds would include both sighted and blind friends. On the other hand, your own life is clearly one that you are fully content with just the way it is.+++

I do have blind friends. People who I knew at school, for example, and have stayed in touch with. Since it was a boarding school, with kids from all over the country (and beyond), I have people all over the place that I can go and stay with, if I want to.

+++That's all that need be said, of course. In other words, that says it all. Perhaps what is really going though my head right now is in imagining going blind myself...how scary that would be. I'd need the empathy that comes with being around others who are also blind.

But then the part that separates you from most other blind people: the fact that "only 1 to 2 babies out of every 100,000 have LCA, but there are as many as 27 genetic mutations that could lead to it. Other potential causes of congenital blindness include things like: maternal cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy. congenital rubella syndrome." healthline+++

Sometimes there is no known cause, either genetic or environmental, as in my case. I was born with small, malformed and non-functioning eyes, and these were removed shortly afterwards as possible infection risks.

+++Some here accuse me of being blind philosophically as well. Why? Because I refuse to stay up in the intellectual clouds with them pinning down the exact definition and meaning of words technically so that their theoretical assessments of meaning, morality and metaphysics can be sustained up in the intellectual clouds.

As for your conservative political convictions, we think about that differently I suspect. From my frame of mind, liberal or conservative values are largely rooted existentially in dasein. Only unlike you "here and now", I don't have access to an intuitive, spiritual, Intrinsic Self enabling me to transcend dasein. I'm still basically fractured and fragmented.

I just don't argue that others ought to be as well. On the contrary, what I wouldn't give to be anchored myself to one or another One True path.+++

I wouldn't describe my conservative leanings as convictions, as that makes them sound far too absolute. I don't know how much you know about UK politics, but at the recent general election in July I voted Reform, that is, Nigel Farage's party, though in my constituency they didn't stand a chance of winning. They're far from perfect, but probably the best of a bad bunch. I don't like extremes in any direction.

[iambiguous]

The best of all possible worlds, as it were. And that's what it may well be. Which is why I tend to focus more on the historical reality of moral and political repression among those communities that practice one or another rendition of objectivism. You do things their way because, if you don't, they have the political power to do all sorts of nasty things to you.

The most interesting historical cultures are the ones that weren't like that, where ideals of personal freedom, however imperfectly realised, played a role. At its best, Classical civilisation went at least some way towards this, though by our standards it would still have seemed unbearably repressive, especially if you happened to be a slave.

We seem to be on the same page here. There are always going to be lines drawn between "I" and "we" and "them" in any particular community. And pertaining to any number of moral conflagrations, if we choose to interact with others, we will almost certainly be confronting them eventually.

Then the part where others react to what we think and feel and say and do. Some will insist that we must become "one of them". Either because they have the raw power to punish us if we don't or because they genuinely believe the path they are on is the One True Path to enlightenment and/or salvation. They then seek to "save" us from ourselves. Not much in the way of personal freedom then, right?

Of course, this will be mean many different things to many different people. Look at all those who have died in Gaza and Israel because the issue there revolves around which rendition of the God of Abraham is the one true God. That they are slaughtering each other in the name of the same God almost never comes up in the news.

I think on the Muslim side, that's certainly the case, but on the Jewish side it's more of a claim over their ancestral homeland. Israel is a secular state that allows freedom of religion.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that in order to reclaim their ancestral land they booted the Palestinians off theirs. But to slaughter others in the name of God, when the God you worship and adore is the same as their own? What's wrong with this picture?

On the other hand, here I go again, able to note that both sides make arguments that seem reasonable to them because they start out with entirely different sets of assumptions about the nature of human reality itself. They are anything but fractured and fragmented.

Not unlike the Mary Kay Letourneau case here in America. What gets particularly tricky here [at times] is that the law has to draw the line somewhere when it comes to sex and children. It's just that some of the students involved might be considerably more precocious and sexually mature than others. Over and over and over again in regard to things like this it becomes a matter of where the line is drawn. And who gets to draw it.

Then the part where some note that nature itself is inclined toward installing puberty in girls as young as 8 and in boys as young as 9.

Any line will be arbitrary, but the alternative of not having one is much worse, and it's possible to be flexible in enforcing it.

With nature, however, arbitrary here means confronting feelings of sexuality as early as 8 for girls and 9 for boys. It's nature's hormones themselves here that get the ball rolling.

As I understand it, no 16-year-old would be prosecuted for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old, for example, and while the age of consent is 16 in the UK, one still needs parental permission in order to marry till the age of 18, and similarly, for people in positions of authority, such as teachers or doctors, there may be legal repercussions if the individual in question is under 18, and under their duty of care. I don't know if the teacher at my school was ever prosecuted, though I suppose if the girl refused to make a complaint or give evidence, there would be little they could do, anyway.

Each individual case is different. But laws are always enacted and then enforced given any number of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. And given the moral and political prejudices of those in power. Or of the community itself.

The can of worms aspect of that particular case would only have been exacerbated by the fact that he was a teacher at a boarding school for the blind, though I don't know if he was blind or VI himself. Some members of staff are, but by no means all. The fact that he and the girl, by then his wife, showed up at a school reunion ten, fifteen, or however many years it was later, still together, presumably means that there were no lasting adverse consequences for him. I do have to wonder why they went, though. Perhaps they just wanted to make a point, or something.

That's what we do here too. But some points are clearly easier to make than others. And in regard to human sexuality, we are talking about deep-seated drives...libidos. And they are often difficult to understand and to control. Men in particular are always getting into one or another sexual calamity.

So, just out of curiosity, what is your favorite love song. Mine? A toss up between "Something" by George Harrison and Foreigner's "I "Want To Know What Love Is".

As soon as I posted it, I knew you'd ask that! There are lots and lots, of course, but if I really had to pick one, I suppose it would be Willy O' Winsbury by Pentangle, which is among my most favourite songs anyway, whether love songs or otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwqP_yoszCE

Yes, I have that song [along with zillions of others] on tape. But I always thought it was Sandy Denny on vocals though until I Googled the lyrics.

And then there's The Story in Your Eyes by the Moody Blues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qJ2GHXzho

I hear that. But my all-time favorite is still Nights In White Satin:

Gazing at people
Some hand in hand
Just what I'm going through
They can't understand
Some try to tell me
Thoughts they cannot defend
Just what you want to be
You will be in the end

Then the truly soaring antidote to that:

And I love you
Yes, I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you

Not many of us want to go to the grave without hearing that from time to time.

If you find the right person love becomes a refuge in so many ways. I came close a couple of times myself but was never able to sustain it.

It still seems remarkable to me because my own tongue clicks barely get much beyond my mouth.

Here's a website that might interest some here:

Teach Yourself to Echolocate
A beginner’s guide to navigating with sound. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-to-echolocate

I think it might be a bit optimistic, to be honest, to expect people to be able to learn how to do it properly as adults, though always possible, I suppose.

I'm still most intrigued by the fact that it can be done at all.

Actually, bats often scare the hell out of people. And that's because cute isn't a word they would use to describe them. Especially the vampire bats. They may have the body of a mouse but their face is downright blood-curdling. But then I'm back to being an abject failure at describing things like this. Even if the bat is right there in front of me I'll screw up the description.

That was a pretty vivid description. I still think they're probably really cute, though, even with the blood-curdling features.

I only wish that I was able to describe it in greater detail. It's like when I watch a true crime documentary that involves someone giving a description to a sketch artist. Hell, if someone was right there in front of me to describe I'd still screw it up. I'm just no good at that sort of thing.

This just popped into my head...

Are there any actual competitions within the blind community itself to see who might be the best at it? There's a YouTube video of exactly that from China: https://youtu.be/nbuyFCevjAY?si=3ZOiS5QPiBp6ogsy

"Chen Yan from China and Dave from Germany are both visually impaired, but can identify the materials from which objects are made by clicking their mouths or clapping their hands, and listening for the echoes. Can they tell what panda toys placed inside cars are made from?"

Unfortunately, it's all in Chinese with English subtitles.

I can just imagine the reaction of the RNIB to a suggestion like that. The answer is a definite no, sadly, though I think it would be really good fun. Because only a minority of blind people can do it, or at least do it well, they don't really encourage it or talk about it very much. Presumably because they think it's unfair on those who can't.

Yes, it was a game show! Everyone seemed to be having fun. But never in a million years would I have imagined that sort of game show.

Amazon has shipped the book and estimates I'll receive it in a week or so.

I'll look forward to discussing it. I've started re-reading it, in fact, which I almost never do so soon after finishing something, and have been picking up on things that I didn't notice the first time round, clues as to what's actually going on, though to be fair, it's pretty obvious from very early on, no doubt deliberately so. It was to me, anyway. The book has a sequel, of sorts, called Friend of the Devil, written many years later, but this is a very different style of book, being part of Peter Robinson's long series of police crime novels featuring a character named Inspector Banks. It's fine, as far as it goes, and crucially, it continues the story presented in Caedmon's Song up to the present day, or at least the present day when it was written, which was, I believe, 2007. So if you find yourself being so moved by the events of Caedmon's Song that you want to know what happened afterwards, Friend of the Devil is essential reading. But if not, that's ok, as Caedmon's Song works perfectly well as a standalone story, as, indeed, it was originally intended.

Sounds good.

Though again, I wonder what it is like to be born blind and read a novel that is full of great descriptions given that much of the description itself will revolve around what the author saw. He's describing things that you would have to translate into a non-visual world. Or am I way off the mark?

On the other hand, some argue that anything we can physically do is natural because we are ourselves an inherent part of nature. Instead, the better distinction, they suggest, might be between natural and normal. Every culture has their own rendition of that but in our modern world with communication technologies [like the internet] it's easier to have access to all of the many different ways in which others think about the same things that we do...but from any number of conflicting perspectives.

That's true, and that fact itself, I would say, is perfectly natural, given human nature, which is essentially tribal. That's how we have evolved, to function as social animals in a tribe, with its own norms of behaviour.

Of course, many years ago, belonging to a tribe was considerably more...natural? In other words, everything often revolved around interactions within the village or the small community itself. There was a place for everyone, and everyone was expected to behave in accordance with the handed down traditions and customs of the community itself.

Whereas, in the modern world...?

On the other hand...
47 Terms That Describe Sexual Attraction, Behavior, and Orientation https://www.healthline.com/health/diffe ... uality#a-c

With human sexuality, practically anything goes. I know there isn't much that I haven't at least tried. But within any particular community, one way or another, there will be rules of behavior such that doing some things will get you rewarded and other things will get you punished. Natural and normal can easily become hopelessly entangled.

I'm probably rather boringly pedestrian, in that case, certainly compared to a lot of Pagans I know, some of whom will literally shag almost anything that moves, given half a chance.

Yes, that's why I was surprised when you first mentioned your commitment to celibacy. When I think of Pagans sexually the first thing that pops into my head is Dionysus. Free love as some call it. On the other hand, "free love" for women will always involve the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Or one or another STD. For any number of men, I suspect, the whole point of "free love" is that they can shag anything that moves. It's just "natural" some might point out.

Though, while we're on the subject of confessions, you may have noticed that when I mentioned, before, that all my sexual partners have been sighted, I was careful to avoid saying that they were all male...

Well, as Woody Allen once noted, "bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night". On the other hand, that makes your commitment to celibacy all the more intriguing. Or maybe that's just me being unable to imagine myself going 7 years celibate.

Sex is always going to be a tricky thing, however. For any number of men, it often revolves first and foremost around the orgasm. With many women, on the other hand, sex is a way to experience love all that much more intimately. That's basically what Supannika was able to convey to me. That, in bed, sexual pleasure is actually the least of it.

But by the same token I suppose that I didn't actually specify that they were all human, either. So, just to set the record straight, they were indeed all human.

Mine too.

And when I say "all" I actually mean four, lest anyone get the wrong idea about me.

It never crossed my mind. But 4 or 40 it all comes down to the extent which the relationships themselves are meaningful in your life.

I suppose, for many, reincarnation is better than oblivion. It just never had all that much appeal for me. And that's because if there is an afterlife most would prefer [by far] that "I" be a part of it. You might come back as a cockroach but if "I" is gone forever...?

Though to the extent that among Pagans the personal beliefs of others are respected, that's always the best of all possible worlds from my frame of mind. But sooner or later one or another set of rules have to be enacted in any given community [Pagan or otherwise] and who gets to decide what those rules are?

No one, in my experience, when it comes to personal beliefs.

Of course, personal beliefs regarding reincarnation are [to me] no less embedded existentially in dasein. It's simply mind-boggling just how many different paths there are to the afterlife. And there doesn't even have to be one, does there? You merely have to convince yourself that there is one.

Me too. But for different reasons. I find myself reserving judgment because my own judgments pertaining to moral and political values are still entangled in a fractured and fragmented frame of mind. All I can then suggest is that the best of all possible worlds revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Personally, I don't think it matters what we believe about an afterlife. It'll just happen anyway, or not, as the case may be. So why worry about it?

I suspect however that those who worry about it the most are those who are actually -- existentially -- getting closer and closer to [without an afterlife] oblivion.

For me, it's simple. The more things in your lfe that fulfill you, and more people in your life who love you, the more you have to lose when they are all taken away for...eternity.

Not much I wouldn't do to figure out a way to believe in it myself.

On the other hand, there will always be those who point out that if you could see the bricks and broken glass and bits of wood sticking up amidst the rubble...

Then I might have avoided them. It was, of course, just a dream, though.

I suspect, however, that for any number of sighted people, the first thing that pops into their head is how they as sighted people understand the world. They could see the danger so blindness itself must be the problem. You would have to instill in them a whole new perspective on connecting the dots here. Dots you can see and dots you cannot.

And it's in regard to respecting those differences that I have always embraced democracy and the rule of law. It's one thing to note that in many important respects we are all different and another thing all together to come up with the least dysfunctional manner in which to sustain the community taking into account all those differences.

I suppose that's the story of human history.

For some more than others, alas.

That's what I want from time to time, but wanting something that you can never have is, well, clearly not healthy. Some drive themselves crazy, or drive everyone else crazy by blaming them for that.

Yes, wanting something you can never have is a complete waste of time.

That might depend on how close to or how far you are from having it. If something is just out of reach you might convince yourself to keep on trying. That and just how important having it can change your life for the better.

Here are some of those misconceptions: https://lvib.org/programs/top-10-miscon ... nd-people/

Though I suspect that within the blind community itself there are going to be any number of conflicts that, one way or another, must be dealt with "for all practical purposes".

Then the part that revolves around whether or not there is such a thing as a "blind culture".

For example: https://www.acb.org/blindness-culture-r ... who-we-are

The one about blind people all being good musicians is amusing, as I'm certainly not, though I love listening to music, of course. As to whether there's a blind culture or not, I would say that if there is, it's a pretty depressing one.

Others agree: https://nfb.org/sites/default/files/ima ... 081007.htm

"However, I feel compelled to raise a question about whether or not there is such a thing as "blind culture," analogous to "deaf culture," a term that deaf people use pretty often and widely"

Apparently, not only is there a “deaf culture” but those in it seem to construe it as such. It seems to revolve around communication:

”Blind people have no problem communicating with other English speakers. Braille is not a language since it is used to write any language. It is merely a tactile method of writing. And, as you can see, blind people have no difficulty using a computer to communicate in written English. Blind people do not congregate in living groups or in order to enjoy a shared lifestyle, religion, political outlook, or any other similarity of experience that holds a cultural group together. Today you will find blind people in every walk of life and at every social and economic level of American society.”

How it used to be:

“It used to be that blind people were relegated to only a handful of occupations: piano tuning; broom-making; basket-weaving; and, for the very bright, teaching other blind people some of the skills they need to know, like reading Braille. But this is no longer the case. Think of an occupation and, unless it actually requires vision (like driving or doing surgery), I probably know a blind person doing that work. Blind people used to congregate in segregated housing because they were discriminated against in renting apartments or buying homes, but laws now make such enforced segregation illegal.”[/quote]

There's also the usual ridiculous "woke" (or what used to be called politically correct) arguments about not saying blind people, but rather, people who are blind, thereby emphasising that they are people, first.

Woke always works both ways from my own perspective. Those who accuse others of embracing a “politically correct” frame of mind often are only noting that what others believe isn’t what they believe. They have their own moral and political assumptions as well. It’s just that when they champion them, it's not woke at all.

I think such rubbish is truly laughable, to be honest, but also has a potentially damaging effect when sighted people accidentally say the supposedly wrong thing, and are made to feel guilty for it. Aren't sighted people, or at least some of them, already nervous enough about saying the wrong thing in front of blind people? It's just stupid trying to make things worse, and counter-productive.

You're right about that, I believe. Whenever you are around others who are different from you, there is always the possibility that you might say or do what to them is the wrong thing. Then the part where politicians seek to "divide and conquer" with each new election cycle. Woke will always be more problematic to me because I don't see the world as easily divided into us vs. them. Then the part where, in being fractured and fragmented, "I" am never really able to make any clearcut distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong, true and false.

Pros and cons. No getting around them, of course. It just seems the best of all possible worlds would include both sighted and blind friends. On the other hand, your own life is clearly one that you are fully content with just the way it is.

I do have blind friends. People who I knew at school, for example, and have stayed in touch with. Since it was a boarding school, with kids from all over the country (and beyond), I have people all over the place that I can go and stay with, if I want to.

Yes, I think that may well be the best of all possible worlds here. There are advantages in being with sighted friends and advantages with being with blind friends.

That's all that need be said, of course. In other words, that says it all. Perhaps what is really going though my head right now is in imagining going blind myself...how scary that would be. I'd need the empathy that comes with being around others who are also blind.

But then the part that separates you from most other blind people: the fact that "only 1 to 2 babies out of every 100,000 have LCA, but there are as many as 27 genetic mutations that could lead to it. Other potential causes of congenital blindness include things like: maternal cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy. congenital rubella syndrome." healthline

Sometimes there is no known cause, either genetic or environmental, as in my case. I was born with small, malformed and non-functioning eyes, and these were removed shortly afterwards as possible infection risks.

There is even such a thing as "hysterical blindness":

"What is hysterical blindness?

Heightened anxiety impacts a person's world, including his or her senses. Symptoms such as paralysis, numbness, or blindness, which are not connected to a medical cause, and are often traced to a psychological trigger are frequently termed conversion disorders or functional neurological symptom disorders."

On the other hand, some folks decided that a better way to describe it is a "conversion disorder".

Again, the human brain!!

Some here accuse me of being blind philosophically as well. Why? Because I refuse to stay up in the intellectual clouds with them pinning down the exact definition and meaning of words technically so that their theoretical assessments of meaning, morality and metaphysics can be sustained up in the intellectual clouds.

As for your conservative political convictions, we think about that differently I suspect. From my frame of mind, liberal or conservative values are largely rooted existentially in dasein. Only unlike you "here and now", I don't have access to an intuitive, spiritual, Intrinsic Self enabling me to transcend dasein. I'm still basically fractured and fragmented.

I just don't argue that others ought to be as well. On the contrary, what I wouldn't give to be anchored myself to one or another One True path.

I wouldn't describe my conservative leanings as convictions, as that makes them sound far too absolute.

Good point.

I don't know how much you know about UK politics, but at the recent general election in July I voted Reform, that is, Nigel Farage's party, though in my constituency they didn't stand a chance of winning. They're far from perfect, but probably the best of a bad bunch. I don't like extremes in any direction.

I spent over 20 years myself as a more or less extreme political activist. But the overwhelming focus was always on American politics. I really don't have much of an understanding anymore about the politics of other countries. I follow the headlines, but I don't go down in depth like I used to.

Again, what is now important to me is in widening the gap between my own understanding of political commitments and the "my way or the highway" extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.

[Maia]

+++We seem to be on the same page here. There are always going to be lines drawn between "I" and "we" and "them" in any particular community. And pertaining to any number of moral conflagrations, if we choose to interact with others, we will almost certainly be confronting them eventually.

Then the part where others react to what we think and feel and say and do. Some will insist that we must become "one of them". Either because they have the raw power to punish us if we don't or because they genuinely believe the path they are on is the One True Path to enlightenment and/or salvation. They then seek to "save" us from ourselves. Not much in the way of personal freedom then, right?+++

One-True-Pathism is the bane of human existence, as I've often said.

+++That's one way to look at it. Another is that in order to reclaim their ancestral land they booted the Palestinians off theirs. But to slaughter others in the name of God, when the God you worship and adore is the same as their own? What's wrong with this picture?

On the other hand, here I go again, able to note that both sides make arguments that seem reasonable to them because they start out with entirely different sets of assumptions about the nature of human reality itself. They are anything but fractured and fragmented.+++

Monotheistic religions seem to reserve their greatest ire for those that are most similar to them. Protestants v. Catholics, Sunni v. Shia, and so on. And all of them hate the Jews, of course, because all of them are offshoots of Judaism.

+++With nature, however, arbitrary here means confronting feelings of sexuality as early as 8 for girls and 9 for boys. It's nature's hormones themselves here that get the ball rolling.+++

It can vary quite considerably, though, depending on all sorts of factors.

+++Each individual case is different. But laws are always enacted and then enforced given any number of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. And given the moral and political prejudices of those in power. Or of the community itself.+++

As is always the case. Any law is a compromise, I suppose.

+++That's what we do here too. But some points are clearly easier to make than others. And in regard to human sexuality, we are talking about deep-seated drives...libidos. And they are often difficult to understand and to control. Men in particular are always getting into one or another sexual calamity.+++

Yes, men do indeed seem prone to messing everything up.

+++Yes, I have that song [along with zillions of others] on tape. But I always thought it was Sandy Denny on vocals though until I Googled the lyrics.+++

Sandy Denny did a song with Fairport Convention called Farewell, Farewell, that uses the same tune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPq5ijmY6wQ

+++I hear that. But my all-time favorite is still Nights In White Satin:

Gazing at people
Some hand in hand
Just what I'm going through
They can't understand
Some try to tell me
Thoughts they cannot defend
Just what you want to be
You will be in the end

Then the truly soaring antidote to that:

And I love you
Yes, I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you

Not many of us want to go to the grave without hearing that from time to time.

If you find the right person love becomes a refuge in so many ways. I came close a couple of times myself but was never able to sustain it.+++

Definitely a good song.

I thought I had it, once. Love, that is. Perhaps I will again.

I'm not saying that I don't think the guy loved me, because I'm sure he did, in his own way. But he was also, on some level, embarrassed about me, whether or not, in that particular instance, he was just mouthing off in front of his mates. And that's no basis for a relationship. He tried to contact me loads of times after that, for ages, but I never responded. In short, he hurt me very badly.

+++I'm still most intrigued by the fact that it can be done at all.+++

I'm surprised that people are so surprised about echolocation. It seems pretty obvious to me, but then, admittedly, I'm a bit biased.

+++I only wish that I was able to describe it in greater detail. It's like when I watch a true crime documentary that involves someone giving a description to a sketch artist. Hell, if someone was right there in front of me to describe I'd still screw it up. I'm just no good at that sort of thing.+++

Nor me.

+++Yes, it was a game show! Everyone seemed to be having fun. But never in a million years would I have imagined that sort of game show.+++

As long as they're having fun, that's the main thing.

+++Sounds good.

Though again, I wonder what it is like to be born blind and read a novel that is full of great descriptions given that much of the description itself will revolve around what the author saw. He's describing things that you would have to translate into a non-visual world. Or am I way off the mark?+++

My favourite books are always those that are full of visual descriptions, such as Tolkien, and, indeed, Caedmon's Song, the more lyrical and poetic the better. I'm not really sure how to describe how I imagine them, though, when I hear them. There's nothing jarring or incongruous about them.

They always say write about what you know, which is why I've always been a bit unsure about how to include visual descriptions in any novel I might write. I think I would have to, though, if I wanted it to be readable. There might be some novelty value, I suppose, in writing a novel without any such descriptions, but that sort of thing would only appeal to a niche audience, I think, and that's not what I want.

+++Of course, many years ago, belonging to a tribe was considerably more...natural? In other words, everything often revolved around interactions within the village or the small community itself. There was a place for everyone, and everyone was expected to behave in accordance with the handed down traditions and customs of the community itself.

Whereas, in the modern world...?+++

Any system that ignores this basic fact of human nature is bound to fail, I think.

+++Yes, that's why I was surprised when you first mentioned your commitment to celibacy. When I think of Pagans sexually the first thing that pops into my head is Dionysus. Free love as some call it. On the other hand, "free love" for women will always involve the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Or one or another STD. For any number of men, I suspect, the whole point of "free love" is that they can shag anything that moves. It's just "natural" some might point out.+++

A commitment that runs out just in time for the Christmas party at work...

+++Well, as Woody Allen once noted, "bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night". On the other hand, that makes your commitment to celibacy all the more intriguing. Or maybe that's just me being unable to imagine myself going 7 years celibate.

Sex is always going to be a tricky thing, however. For any number of men, it often revolves first and foremost around the orgasm. With many women, on the other hand, sex is a way to experience love all that much more intimately. That's basically what Supannika was able to convey to me. That, in bed, sexual pleasure is actually the least of it.+++

Well, it was just the once, so I think bisexual might be stretching it a bit. I have no particular plans to repeat it. In other words, been there, done that.

+++It never crossed my mind. But 4 or 40 it all comes down to the extent which the relationships themselves are meaningful in your life.+++

Absolutely.

+++Of course, personal beliefs regarding reincarnation are [to me] no less embedded existentially in dasein. It's simply mind-boggling just how many different paths there are to the afterlife. And there doesn't even have to be one, does there? You merely have to convince yourself that there is one.+++

I don't think there's any particular point in trying to convince yourself that there is one. It might be better, or at least easier, to try and convince yourself that you don't need to know.

+++I suspect however that those who worry about it the most are those who are actually -- existentially -- getting closer and closer to [without an afterlife] oblivion.

For me, it's simple. The more things in your lfe that fulfill you, and more people in your life who love you, the more you have to lose when they are all taken away for...eternity.

Not much I wouldn't do to figure out a way to believe in it myself.+++

I can't really offer any advice about that, since I'm very much on the fence about it. All I can suggest, again, is that it doesn't matter if you don't know.

+++I suspect, however, that for any number of sighted people, the first thing that pops into their head is how they as sighted people understand the world. They could see the danger so blindness itself must be the problem. You would have to instill in them a whole new perspective on connecting the dots here. Dots you can see and dots you cannot.+++

Being blind is just a different way of interacting with the world. I have never, in my whole life, felt myself to be in any greater danger because if it. I hardly ever even think about it, unless it happens to come up for some reason. I probably think about it more when talking about it here than any other time. And that's fine.

+++That might depend on how close to or how far you are from having it. If something is just out of reach you might convince yourself to keep on trying. That and just how important having it can change your life for the better.+++

If something's impossible, then it can't be close to being achieved.

+++Others agree: https://nfb.org/sites/default/files/ima ... 081007.htm

"However, I feel compelled to raise a question about whether or not there is such a thing as "blind culture," analogous to "deaf culture," a term that deaf people use pretty often and widely"

Apparently, not only is there a “deaf community” but those in it seem to construe it as such. It seems to revolve around communication:

”Blind people have no problem communicating with other English speakers. Braille is not a language since it is used to write any language. It is merely a tactile method of writing. And, as you can see, blind people have no difficulty using a computer to communicate in written English. Blind people do not congregate in living groups or in order to enjoy a shared lifestyle, religion, political outlook, or any other similarity of experience that holds a cultural group together. Today you will find blind people in every walk of life and at every social and economic level of American society.”

How it used to be:

“It used to be that blind people were relegated to only a handful of occupations: piano tuning; broom-making; basket-weaving; and, for the very bright, teaching other blind people some of the skills they need to know, like reading Braille. But this is no longer the case. Think of an occupation and, unless it actually requires vision (like driving or doing surgery), I probably know a blind person doing that work. Blind people used to congregate in segregated housing because they were discriminated against in renting apartments or buying homes, but laws now make such enforced segregation illegal.”[/quote]+++

It's certainly true that the deaf community has a far more militant attitude about there being such a thing as deaf culture. They even use terms like "profoundly deaf" to refer to people who can't hear a thing, but no one ever says "profoundly blind" for example (or hardly ever, anyway). I think I mentioned before that we had at least two deafblind students at my school, though neither were profoundly deaf, as far as I know. Deaf people use sign language, of course, in particular, something called BSL (British Sign Language), though there are others. You may be wondering how blind people communicate with deaf people who are using sign language. They do it by holding their hands around the hands of the person signing. We had an optional course for this at school, though I didn't go on it.

+++Woke always works both ways from my own perspective. Those who accuse others of embracing a “politically correct” frame of mind often are only noting that what others believe isn’t what they believe. They have their own moral and political assumptions as well. It’s just that when they champion them, it's not woke at all.+++

It's wokeness that's causing problems at the leisure centre where I work, with the possible imposition of unisex changing rooms, toilets, uniforms, and so on. I would leave, if they ever did so.

+++You're right about that, I believe. Whenever you are around others who are different from you, there is always the possibility that you might say or do what to them is the wrong thing. Then the part where politicians seek to "divide and conquer" with each new election cycle. Woke will always be more problematic to me because I don't see the world as easily divided into us vs. them. Then the part where, in being fractured and fragmented, "I" am never really able to make any clearcut distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong, true and false.+++

Well, having been on the receiving end, all my life, of people being afraid to talk to me, in case they say the wrong thing, all I want to do is tell them to lighten up a bit. You won't offend me, unless you deliberately set out to, and in such cases, it's obvious. I can't actually say anything like that, though, as it would just lead to more awkwardness, which is the last thing I want.

+++Yes, I think that may well be the best of all possible worlds here. There are advantages in being with sighted friends and advantages with being with blind friends.+++

Yes, I do indeed think I have the best of both possible worlds.

+++There is even such a thing as "hysterical blindness":

"What is hysterical blindness?

Heightened anxiety impacts a person's world, including his or her senses. Symptoms such as paralysis, numbness, or blindness, which are not connected to a medical cause, and are often traced to a psychological trigger are frequently termed conversion disorders or functional neurological symptom disorders."

On the other hand, some folks decided that a better way to describe it is a "conversion disorder".

Again, the human brain!!+++

There's such a thing as hysterical sightedness too, if that's the right way of describing it, where someone who loses their sight refuses to accept it or believe it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_syndrome

+++I spent over 20 years myself as a more or less extreme political activist. But the overwhelming focus was always on American politics. I really don't have much of an understanding anymore about the politics of other countries. I follow the headlines, but I don't go down in depth like I used to.

Again, what is now important to me is in widening the gap between my own understanding of political commitments and the "my way or the highway" extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.+++

Most of the time, I find politics to be mind-numbingly boring. But since Brexit I've become more aware of it, I suppose. I never bothered voting before that, anyway. And I've been quite disgusted with the antics of our newly elected prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, or Two-Tier Keir as everyone is calling him these days.

[iambiguous]

We seem to be on the same page here. There are always going to be lines drawn between "I" and "we" and "them" in any particular community. And pertaining to any number of moral conflagrations, if we choose to interact with others, we will almost certainly be confronting them eventually.

Then the part where others react to what we think and feel and say and do. Some will insist that we must become "one of them". Either because they have the raw power to punish us if we don't or because they genuinely believe the path they are on is the One True Path to enlightenment and/or salvation. They then seek to "save" us from ourselves. Not much in the way of personal freedom then, right?

One-True-Pathism is the bane of human existence, as I've often said.

And yet for tens of millions around the globe, the bane of human existence is the fact that others refuse to share their own.

What I enjoy most about our exchange is the fact that we seem to share this frame of mind. We have our own personal thoughts and feelings about of the world around us, but we're not out to chisel them in stone. And certainly not intent on imposing one or another rendition of "or else" on those who refuse to think as we do.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that in order to reclaim their ancestral land they booted the Palestinians off theirs. But to slaughter others in the name of God, when the God you worship and adore is the same as their own? What's wrong with this picture?

On the other hand, here I go again, able to note that both sides make arguments that seem reasonable to them because they start out with entirely different sets of assumptions about the nature of human reality itself. They are anything but fractured and fragmented.

Monotheistic religions seem to reserve their greatest ire for those that are most similar to them. Protestants v. Catholics, Sunni v. Shia, and so on. And all of them hate the Jews, of course, because all of them are offshoots of Judaism.

Yep, that's often how it all seems to unfold. Even in the secular world. I still recall back in my own days as a political activist how we often reserved our most vitriolic outrage for those on "our side" who refused to think like we did about the "bad guys". Factionalism we called it.

With nature, however, arbitrary here means confronting feelings of sexuality as early as 8 for girls and 9 for boys. It's nature's hormones themselves here that get the ball rolling.

It can vary quite considerably, though, depending on all sorts of factors.

On the other hand, some might argue that if nature itself deemed it biologically imperative for girls and boys to experience sexual arousal as early as 8 or 9 who are we to repress that until they are 16 or 18? And of course, this revolves by and large around Life expectancy. Centuries ago, you could expect to live to around 30 to 32 years.

Each individual case is different. But laws are always enacted and then enforced given any number of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. And given the moral and political prejudices of those in power. Or of the community itself.

As is always the case. Any law is a compromise, I suppose.

By and large it would seem in countries that embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise in regard to behaviors that precipitate conflicts there's more opportunity for give and take. That and the role that political economy plays in sustaining what some deem to be one or another rendition of the "Deep State'.

That's what we do here too. But some points are clearly easier to make than others. And in regard to human sexuality, we are talking about deep-seated drives...libidos. And they are often difficult to understand and to control. Men in particular are always getting into one or another sexual calamity.

Yes, men do indeed seem prone to messing everything up.

But then the tricky part where some argue that, given the biological imperatives rooted in testosterone, men are all but preprogramed genetically to shag anything that moves. In other words, some like Satyr have considerably more entrenched views regarding gender roles and sexuality. Their own rendition of natural behavior revolves almost entirely around their own rendition of biological imperatives.

Yes, I have that song [along with zillions of others] on tape. But I always thought it was Sandy Denny on vocals though until I Googled the lyrics.

Sandy Denny did a song with Fairport Convention called Farewell, Farewell, that uses the same tune.

Yes, that's it! Thanks. Same melody different lyrics?
https://youtu.be/fPq5ijmY6wQ?si=hIMeA7EDbQ-oSuMX

I hear that. But my all-time favorite is still Nights In White Satin:

Gazing at people
Some hand in hand
Just what I'm going through
They can't understand
Some try to tell me
Thoughts they cannot defend
Just what you want to be
You will be in the end

Then the truly soaring antidote to that:

And I love you
Yes, I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you
Oh, how I love you

Not many of us want to go to the grave without hearing that from time to time.

If you find the right person love becomes a refuge in so many ways. I came close a couple of times myself but was never able to sustain it.

Definitely a good song.

I thought I had it, once. Love, that is. Perhaps I will again.

As long as you are out in the world interacting with others, you can never really know for sure what is -- or who is -- around that next corner.

And then this part: https://youtu.be/bOH-toABAG8?si=lrJtTgw8RPQEFmsU&t=12

I suppose that's why online dating sites are so popular. Members can exchange information about themselves that either appeals to you or it doesn't. Is that something that might appeal to you...a personal ad? On the other hand, are there sites that include both sighted and blind members?

Just out of curiosity, how would you describe yourself to a potential date?

Then the expression "blind date": "a romantic meeting between two people who have never met before." Here though it's not so much "looks" that count as the fact that you know almost nothing about the person you are going out on a date with. Though for others, of course, "looks" isn't everything...it's the only thing.

I'm not saying that I don't think the guy loved me, because I'm sure he did, in his own way. But he was also, on some level, embarrassed about me, whether or not, in that particular instance, he was just mouthing off in front of his mates. And that's no basis for a relationship. He tried to contact me loads of times after that, for ages, but I never responded. In short, he hurt me very badly.

Embarrassed because you were blind? You had mentioned this before, as I recall. Of course, intimate relationships can get really, really complicated, really, really fast. All we can do then is to live and learn.

I'm still most intrigued by the fact that it can be done at all.

I'm surprised that people are so surprised about echolocation. It seems pretty obvious to me, but then, admittedly, I'm a bit biased.

Again, I think it revolves by and large around particular sighted people hearing about it, clicking their tongues themselves and thinking..."there's no way!"

I only wish that I was able to describe it in greater detail. It's like when I watch a true crime documentary that involves someone giving a description to a sketch artist. Hell, if someone was right there in front of me to describe I'd still screw it up. I'm just no good at that sort of thing.

Nor me.

On the other hand, I am sighted and, if asked to describe someone standing right next to me, how hard can that be? It drives me crazy sometimes.

Yes, it was a game show! Everyone seemed to be having fun. But never in a million years would I have imagined that sort of game show.

As long as they're having fun, that's the main thing.

They were having a great time it seemed. The whole set up however was, from my own frame of mind, surreal. Maybe one of your sighted friends can describe what is unfolding. In other words, maybe I'm not understanding what is really going on myself!

Sounds good.

Though again, I wonder what it is like to be born blind and read a novel that is full of great descriptions given that much of the description itself will revolve around what the author saw. He's describing things that you would have to translate into a non-visual world. Or am I way off the mark?

My favourite books are always those that are full of visual descriptions, such as Tolkien, and, indeed, Caedmon's Song, the more lyrical and poetic the better. I'm not really sure how to describe how I imagine them, though, when I hear them. There's nothing jarring or incongruous about them.

This is just something that is difficult for me to understand. Tolkien is describing a world that he made up. I can't understand how that would be [could be] understood by you. It's not like those born blind can ever experience Middle-Earth visually through the movie franchise. And Lord of the Rings is described as an "epic high fantasy." With fantasy, reality itself can just be thought up out of the blue.

They always say write about what you know, which is why I've always been a bit unsure about how to include visual descriptions in any novel I might write. I think I would have to, though, if I wanted it to be readable. There might be some novelty value, I suppose, in writing a novel without any such descriptions, but that sort of thing would only appeal to a niche audience, I think, and that's not what I want.

How about this...

How would you describe the flat you live in? You've never seen it at all but in regard to all of your other senses there are words able to convey a lot of information about it.

Of course, many years ago, belonging to a tribe was considerably more...natural? In other words, everything often revolved around interactions within the village or the small community itself. There was a place for everyone, and everyone was expected to behave in accordance with the handed down traditions and customs of the community itself.

Whereas, in the modern world...?

Any system that ignores this basic fact of human nature is bound to fail, I think.

And yet few are willing to conclude the system they are a part of is anything other than the One True Path. And some of those paths have been around for millennia.

Yes, that's why I was surprised when you first mentioned your commitment to celibacy. When I think of Pagans sexually the first thing that pops into my head is Dionysus. Free love as some call it. On the other hand, "free love" for women will always involve the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Or one or another STD. For any number of men, I suspect, the whole point of "free love" is that they can shag anything that moves. It's just "natural" some might point out.

A commitment that runs out just in time for the Christmas party at work...

In other words, "the seven years are up at the winter solstice this year."

Seriously, after seven years, is this something you are looking forward to? Have you thought through a plan to find the right person, or are you just going to leave it up to...fate? To, uh, blind luck?

Though, indeed, we are getting closer and closer to Saturday, December 21, 2024, 4:19 AM. No more commitment after that. So, don't forget to set the alarm. On the other hand, again, do you have any new plans as to how things might change for you? In other words, in the romance department there's leaving it all up to luck or you think up ways to make your own luck.

Well, as Woody Allen once noted, "bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night". On the other hand, that makes your commitment to celibacy all the more intriguing. Or maybe that's just me being unable to imagine myself going 7 years celibate.

Sex is always going to be a tricky thing, however. For any number of men, it often revolves first and foremost around the orgasm. With many women, on the other hand, sex is a way to experience love all that much more intimately. That's basically what Supannika was able to convey to me. That, in bed, sexual pleasure is actually the least of it.

Well, it was just the once, so I think bisexual might be stretching it a bit. I have no particular plans to repeat it. In other words, been there, done that.

Still, one never really knows about these things. If the right person does come around and it's a woman...? In fact, my own marriage was an open relationship towards the end. I was free to see other women, and so was she. If you get my drift.

It's just that in being as pretty as you are, your own "looks" are going to be a factor among some sighted men. You may not be thinking about it in that way but any number of them will be.

Is this something you have discussed with both your sighted and blind friends?

Of course, personal beliefs regarding reincarnation are [to me] no less embedded existentially in dasein. It's simply mind-boggling just how many different paths there are to the afterlife. And there doesn't even have to be one, does there? You merely have to convince yourself that there is one.

I don't think there's any particular point in trying to convince yourself that there is one. It might be better, or at least easier, to try and convince yourself that you don't need to know.

Still, if there is anyone here who thinks there's even a snowball's chance in Hell that their belief about the afterlife [that there is one] is the real deal, please, by all means run it by me.

I suspect however that those who worry about it the most are those who are actually -- existentially -- getting closer and closer to [without an afterlife] oblivion.

For me, it's simple. The more things in your lfe that fulfill you, and more people in your life who love you, the more you have to lose when they are all taken away for...eternity.

Not much I wouldn't do to figure out a way to believe in it myself.

I can't really offer any advice about that, since I'm very much on the fence about it. All I can suggest, again, is that it doesn't matter if you don't know.

Well, if there actually is but One True Path to immortality and salvation, it matters considerably to me that I find it. And given just how unimaginably and vastly mysterious the existence of existence itself is, can it really be ruled out?

I suspect, however, that for any number of sighted people, the first thing that pops into their head is how they as sighted people understand the world. They could see the danger so blindness itself must be the problem. You would have to instill in them a whole new perspective on connecting the dots here. Dots you can see and dots you cannot.

Being blind is just a different way of interacting with the world. I have never, in my whole life, felt myself to be in any greater danger because if it. I hardly ever even think about it, unless it happens to come up for some reason. I probably think about it more when talking about it here than any other time. And that's fine.

And I hope that remains something you are able to sustain on into the future. But, again, for me it's still grappling to understand [better than I do now] that gap between, on the one hand, having once been sighted and then losing your vision and then on the other hand, never, ever having had any vision at all.

That's the sort of exchange that would be truly interesting to explore. A discussion between someone blind from birth and someone who was once able to see for years but then lost their vision. What parts might overlap and be readily communicated and what parts might not be.

Here's another video from Tommy Edison that explores this very thing: https://youtu.be/RiG97xFPJvo?si=m98o3AYa03a1ohqF

That might depend on how close to or how far you are from having it. If something is just out of reach you might convince yourself to keep on trying. That and just how important having it can change your life for the better.

If something's impossible, then it can't be close to being achieved.

That is certainly the case. You can't achieve something that is beyond the reach of all of us. The tricky part however would seem to revolve more around pinning down what really is or is not impossible.

From Medical Xpress:

"A study led by Georgetown University neuroscientists reveals that the part of the brain that receives and processes visual information in sighted people develops a unique connectivity pattern in people born blind. They say this pattern in the primary visual cortex is unique to each person—akin to a fingerprint."

On the other hand, as my friend Carol suggests, look at how many medical conditions were once thought to be way beyond either changing or curing. So, it might be just a matter of timing. In other words, 25 years from now, 50 years from now medical science might be able to create artificial/bionic eyes able to be reconnected to the brain. Just as medical science might come up with ways for mere mortal to live for hundreds of years. Just not in our lifetime, alas.

Here's AI's take on it:

"While there is currently no way to fully restore vision to someone born blind, medical science is actively researching technologies like bionic eyes, gene therapy, and brain implants that could potentially provide a rudimentary sense of sight to people with blindness, offering hope for future advancements in this area; however, it is still considered a long-term goal with ongoing clinical trials and significant challenges to overcome."

I'm curious. If, someday, you were able to see who or what would you want to see first?

Others agree: https://nfb.org/sites/default/files/ima ... 081007.htm

"However, I feel compelled to raise a question about whether or not there is such a thing as "blind culture," analogous to "deaf culture," a term that deaf people use pretty often and widely"

Apparently, not only is there a “deaf community” but those in it seem to construe it as such. It seems to revolve around communication:

”Blind people have no problem communicating with other English speakers. Braille is not a language since it is used to write any language. It is merely a tactile method of writing. And, as you can see, blind people have no difficulty using a computer to communicate in written English. Blind people do not congregate in living groups or in order to enjoy a shared lifestyle, religion, political outlook, or any other similarity of experience that holds a cultural group together. Today you will find blind people in every walk of life and at every social and economic level of American society.”

How it used to be:

“It used to be that blind people were relegated to only a handful of occupations: piano tuning; broom-making; basket-weaving; and, for the very bright, teaching other blind people some of the skills they need to know, like reading Braille. But this is no longer the case. Think of an occupation and, unless it actually requires vision (like driving or doing surgery), I probably know a blind person doing that work. Blind people used to congregate in segregated housing because they were discriminated against in renting apartments or buying homes, but laws now make such enforced segregation illegal.”

It's certainly true that the deaf community has a far more militant attitude about there being such a thing as deaf culture. They even use terms like "profoundly deaf" to refer to people who can't hear a thing, but no one ever says "profoundly blind" for example (or hardly ever, anyway).

Here again, what would be interesting [to me] is an exchange between those born deaf and those born blind discussing the subject of communication.

One take:

"A conversation between someone born deaf and someone born blind might revolve around their unique experiences navigating the world without sight or hearing, comparing how they perceive and interact with their environment, discussing challenges related to communication, and exploring the ways they use their heightened senses to understand the world around them, potentially including topics like the tactile nature of sign language for the deaf person and the importance of detailed descriptions for the blind person to grasp concepts."

I think I mentioned before that we had at least two deafblind students at my school, though neither were profoundly deaf, as far as I know. Deaf people use sign language, of course, in particular, something called BSL (British Sign Language), though there are others. You may be wondering how blind people communicate with deaf people who are using sign language. They do it by holding their hands around the hands of the person signing. We had an optional course for this at school, though I didn't go on it.

I've seen that done in movies. And it's just one more thing I'm convinced I could possibly learn, but it's hard not to be overwhelmed watching experienced deaf people do it. Their hands and their fingers flying back and forth at breakneck speed until it all just becomes a blur.

Woke always works both ways from my own perspective. Those who accuse others of embracing a “politically correct” frame of mind often are only noting that what others believe isn’t what they believe. They have their own moral and political assumptions as well. It’s just that when they champion them, it's not woke at all.

t's wokeness that's causing problems at the leisure centre where I work, with the possible imposition of unisex changing rooms, toilets, uniforms, and so on. I would leave, if they ever did so.

I'm with you when it comes to unisex bathrooms or men becoming women and then competing against CIS women in athletic events.

Though, as per usual, this is one of those issues that I root existentially in dasein. And while it may be possible that someday science and philosophy will concoct a "resolution", in the interim all we can do is to note the reasons why we think about things like this as we do "here and now". And then the part where your reasons seem derived from an intuitive, Intrinsic Self, while my own are still hopelessly -- haplessly? -- drawn and quartered.

You're right about that, I believe. Whenever you are around others who are different from you, there is always the possibility that you might say or do what to them is the wrong thing. Then the part where politicians seek to "divide and conquer" with each new election cycle. Woke will always be more problematic to me because I don't see the world as easily divided into us vs. them. Then the part where, in being fractured and fragmented, "I" am never really able to make any clearcut distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong, true and false.

Well, having been on the receiving end, all my life, of people being afraid to talk to me, in case they say the wrong thing, all I want to do is tell them to lighten up a bit. You won't offend me, unless you deliberately set out to, and in such cases, it's obvious. I can't actually say anything like that, though, as it would just lead to more awkwardness, which is the last thing I want.

Well put.

Yes, I think that may well be the best of all possible worlds here. There are advantages in being with sighted friends and advantages with being with blind friends.

Yes, I do indeed think I have the best of both possible worlds.

That settles it then. Then it's just a matter of whether any new experiences, new relationships and/or access to new information and knowledge prompts you to change your mind.

There is even such a thing as "hysterical blindness":

"What is hysterical blindness?

Heightened anxiety impacts a person's world, including his or her senses. Symptoms such as paralysis, numbness, or blindness, which are not connected to a medical cause, and are often traced to a psychological trigger are frequently termed conversion disorders or functional neurological symptom disorders."

On the other hand, some folks decided that a better way to describe it is a "conversion disorder".

Again, the human brain!!

I spent over 20 years myself as a more or less extreme political activist. But the overwhelming focus was always on American politics. I really don't have much of an understanding anymore about the politics of other countries. I follow the headlines, but I don't go down in depth like I used to.

Again, what is now important to me is in widening the gap between my own understanding of political commitments and the "my way or the highway" extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.

Most of the time, I find politics to be mind-numbingly boring. But since Brexit I've become more aware of it, I suppose. I never bothered voting before that, anyway. And I've been quite disgusted with the antics of our newly elected prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, or Two-Tier Keir as everyone is calling him these days.

Once I was a moral objectivist myself. Now, however, as a moral nihilist, I construe political interactions by and large as embedded either in conflicting goods going back thousands of years now unresolved or in political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

It's truly problematic however because on the one hand I find myself reacting to those newspaper headlines based on my own accumulated assumptions about the "human condition". On the other hand, nowadays, I'm almost always drawn and quartered, pulled and tugged ambivalently in many truly convoluted directions.

[Maia]

+++And yet for tens of millions around the globe, the bane of human existence is the fact that others refuse to share their own.

What I enjoy most about our exchange is the fact that we seem to share this frame of mind. We have our own personal thoughts and feelings about of the world around us, but we're not out to chisel them in stone. And certainly not intent on imposing one or another rendition of "or else" on those who refuse to think as we do.+++

I would certainly never want to impose my opinions on anyone else.

+++Yep, that's often how it all seems to unfold. Even in the secular world. I still recall back in my own days as a political activist how we often reserved our most vitriolic outrage for those on "our side" who refused to think like we did about the "bad guys". Factionalism we called it.+++

It seems to be a strange quirk of human nature.

+++On the other hand, some might argue that if nature itself deemed it biologically imperative for girls and boys to experience sexual arousal as early as 8 or 9 who are we to repress that until they are 16 or 18? And of course, this revolves by and large around Life expectancy. Centuries ago, you could expect to live to around 30 to 32 years.+++

It's also a biological imperative to kill anyone who threatens us or our children. One of the functions of civilisation is to circumvent such biological imperatives, to the extent that this is possible.

+++By and large it would seem in countries that embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise in regard to behaviors that precipitate conflicts there's more opportunity for give and take. That and the role that political economy plays in sustaining what some deem to be one or another rendition of the "Deep State'.+++

Another aspect of civilisation.

+++But then the tricky part where some argue that, given the biological imperatives rooted in testosterone, men are all but preprogramed genetically to shag anything that moves. In other words, some like Satyr have considerably more entrenched views regarding gender roles and sexuality. Their own rendition of natural behavior revolves almost entirely around their own rendition of biological imperatives.+++

History tells us that those societies that are able to tame such biological imperatives, and channel them into other areas, are the ones that become great civilisations. Just trying to suppress them, however, doesn't work.

+++Yes, that's it! Thanks. Same melody different lyrics?
https://youtu.be/fPq5ijmY6wQ?si=hIMeA7EDbQ-oSuMX+++

Absolutely.

+++As long as you are out in the world interacting with others, you can never really know for sure what is -- or who is -- around that next corner.

And then this part: https://youtu.be/bOH-toABAG8?si=lrJtTgw8RPQEFmsU&t=12

I suppose that's why online dating sites are so popular. Members can exchange information about themselves that either appeals to you or it doesn't. Is that something that might appeal to you...a personal ad? On the other hand, are there sites that include both sighted and blind members?

Just out of curiosity, how would you describe yourself to a potential date?

Then the expression "blind date": "a romantic meeting between two people who have never met before." Here though it's not so much "looks" that count as the fact that you know almost nothing about the person you are going out on a date with. Though for others, of course, "looks" isn't everything...it's the only thing.+++

I've never really considered going on any dating sites, and, to be honest, never felt that I need to. There are a number of sites that cater for the blind community, but that's just another aspect of its insular and inward-looking nature, in my opinion, and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with those. I don't know of any that are specifically set up to cater for both blind and sighted people. Unless, of course, you count the standard dating sites, which presumably don't bar blind people from joining. There are also Pagan ones too, incidentally, which, if I were to join any at all, would be a better option, I think. But even so, it's far better just to go to some Pagan event or festival. I'd have to meet someone in person, and, to put it bluntly, smell them, to know if I was physically attracted to them. As for how I would describe myself on such a site, I suppose I couldn't do much better than the rather hastily written blurb I put up on ILP a few months ago, when I found that my old one, from way back in 2012, had disappeared:

"More of an amateur historian than a philosopher, if I had to pigeonhole myself. I once wanted to be an archaeologist, and part of me still does. Jobwise, I’ve worked in the care industry since leaving school, mainly with the elderly. For as long as I can remember I’ve been a Pagan, even when I didn’t know it had a name, and this has informed pretty much every aspect of my life. I’m also blind, too."

Come to think of it, my profile at PN is rather laconic. Perhaps it's time to update it.

+++Embarrassed because you were blind? You had mentioned this before, as I recall. Of course, intimate relationships can get really, really complicated, really, really fast. All we can do then is to live and learn.+++

Yes, I think that was clearly the case, and that's why he felt the need, when he was with his mates, to say those things, to save face, as it were, claiming he felt sorry for me and was doing me a favour, and so on. He may, or may not, have actually thought that, but that's very much not the point.

+++Again, I think it revolves by and large around particular sighted people hearing about it, clicking their tongues themselves and thinking..."there's no way!"+++

Yes, I suppose so.

+++On the other hand, I am sighted and, if asked to describe someone standing right next to me, how hard can that be? It drives me crazy sometimes.+++

Perhaps you're partially face blind, or something.

+++How about this...

How would you describe the flat you live in? You've never seen it at all but in regard to all of your other senses there are words able to convey a lot of information about it.+++

My flat is the ground floor of a converted former council house, built in around 1930, I believe, and part of a small terrace in a very small and secluded cul-de-sac. The front door is on the left of the house, leading into a small porch, then the house itself. Immediately ahead are the stairs, and the floor above is empty. To the right is another door, leading into my part of the house. The living room is about six metres by four and a half metres, with a bay window at one end, to the right as you enter it. I have a small, circular table in the middle, two wooden chairs, and an armchair. I also have some other chairs stacked up, in case of guests. I've been thinking about ordering some bean bags, but haven't got round to it yet. After entering the room and turning left, on the left, against the wall, is a bookcase, stuffed full of various Braille books and magazines. Ahead, against the far wall, at the opposite end of the room to the bay window, is another such bookcase, on top of which is an embossed globe, labelled in Braille, which I've had since I was little. To the left, beyond the first bookcase, is the door to the bedroom, which is about half the size of the living room. At the far end of the living room, to the left of the bookcase with the globe, is the door to the kitchen, which is quite cluttered with a fridge, a freezer, washing machine and dryer, and a cooker that doesn't currently work. To the right of the kitchen is a door that leads to a very small storeroom, and the bathroom. Directly ahead is the door to the conservatory, which runs along the back of the house but is only about a metre and a half wide, and beyond that, the back garden. The only way of getting to the back garden is through my flat, so it's essentially mine. There's another way into it through an entryway that runs alongside the house, but I keep the door to that permanently bolted from the inside.

+++And yet few are willing to conclude the system they are a part of is anything other than the One True Path. And some of those paths have been around for millennia.+++

Continually mutating and dividing into lots of different One True Paths, all competing against each other.

+++In other words, "the seven years are up at the winter solstice this year."

Seriously, after seven years, is this something you are looking forward to? Have you thought through a plan to find the right person, or are you just going to leave it up to...fate? To, uh, blind luck?

Though, indeed, we are getting closer and closer to Saturday, December 21, 2024, 4:19 AM. No more commitment after that. So, don't forget to set the alarm. On the other hand, again, do you have any new plans as to how things might change for you? In other words, in the romance department there's leaving it all up to luck or you think up ways to make your own luck.+++

I'm very much going to leave it to fate. I wasn't being particularly serious when I mentioned the Christmas party at work, as I already know everyone who'll be there, and my guess is that if anything happens, it'll be at some Pagan event or other. Not that I get a chance to go to all that many these days, what with work commitments and all, but who knows? It's not as if I haven't had guys asking me out, but I didn't really feel attracted to any of them. Now, perhaps, I'll be more willing to give them a chance.

+++Still, one never really knows about these things. If the right person does come around and it's a woman...? In fact, my own marriage was an open relationship towards the end. I was free to see other women, and so was she. If you get my drift.

It's just that in being as pretty as you are, your own "looks" are going to be a factor among some sighted men. You may not be thinking about it in that way but any number of them will be.

Is this something you have discussed with both your sighted and blind friends?+++

Thank you for the compliment. As to whether I might feel attracted to a woman, I tend to doubt it, to be honest. I'm not particular proud of the previous occasion, since it was shortly after I'd split up with my boyfriend under the aforementioned unpleasant circumstances, and I'd had a bit to drink. Which is one of the reasons, incidentally, that I decided to cut out booze altogether, though I hasten to add that I was never a big drinker, perhaps the odd glass of wine or two, even at Pagan gatherings, where the usual practice is for everyone to get so blind drunk that they can hardly stand up.

I don't remember ever discussing the subject of someone else's looks in any great depth, other than the odd comment here and there. I do, of course, realise how important they are to sighted people, and take care of myself, for that reason, and also because it makes me feel better. This includes asking the opinions of sighted friends.

+++And I hope that remains something you are able to sustain on into the future. But, again, for me it's still grappling to understand [better than I do now] that gap between, on the one hand, having once been sighted and then losing your vision and then on the other hand, never, ever having had any vision at all.

That's the sort of exchange that would be truly interesting to explore. A discussion between someone blind from birth and someone who was once able to see for years but then lost their vision. What parts might overlap and be readily communicated and what parts might not be.

Here's another video from Tommy Edison that explores this very thing: https://youtu.be/RiG97xFPJvo?si=m98o3AYa03a1ohqF+++

They raised some interesting points in that. I can certainly relate to the one about keeping your eyes open, as this is indeed a bit of an effort, at times. As a general rule, if I'm wearing my prostheses, I make a point of keeping my eyes open, as it rather defeats the object, otherwise. As for whether I'd try some sort of experimental surgery to provide me with vision, the answer is no, I wouldn't. I'm not going to have people sticking things into my brain, for anything. If it was guaranteed both 100% safe and 100% effective (and nothing ever could be, of course), I might think twice, but as it is, definitely not. And as for clothes, well, unless I'm doing something special, I usually just wear my work uniform, whether or not I'm at work, since I have lots of each item and just order them from Amazon. I do, indeed, sometimes go shopping with friends for things, but probably not as often as I should.

+++That is certainly the case. You can't achieve something that is beyond the reach of all of us. The tricky part however would seem to revolve more around pinning down what really is or is not impossible.

From Medical Xpress:

"A study led by Georgetown University neuroscientists reveals that the part of the brain that receives and processes visual information in sighted people develops a unique connectivity pattern in people born blind. They say this pattern in the primary visual cortex is unique to each person—akin to a fingerprint."

On the other hand, as my friend Carol suggests, look at how many medical conditions were once thought to be way beyond either changing or curing. So, it might be just a matter of timing. In other words, 25 years from now, 50 years from now medical science might be able to create artificial/bionic eyes able to be reconnected to the brain. Just as medical science might come up with ways for mere mortal to live for hundreds of years. Just not in our lifetime, alas.

Here's AI's take on it:

"While there is currently no way to fully restore vision to someone born blind, medical science is actively researching technologies like bionic eyes, gene therapy, and brain implants that could potentially provide a rudimentary sense of sight to people with blindness, offering hope for future advancements in this area; however, it is still considered a long-term goal with ongoing clinical trials and significant challenges to overcome."

I'm curious. If, someday, you were able to see who or what would you want to see first?+++

Hmm, that's a tricky one. My family, I suppose.

+++Here again, what would be interesting [to me] is an exchange between those born deaf and those born blind discussing the subject of communication.

One take:

"A conversation between someone born deaf and someone born blind might revolve around their unique experiences navigating the world without sight or hearing, comparing how they perceive and interact with their environment, discussing challenges related to communication, and exploring the ways they use their heightened senses to understand the world around them, potentially including topics like the tactile nature of sign language for the deaf person and the importance of detailed descriptions for the blind person to grasp concepts."+++

Then again, it might revolve around where they went on holiday that year, or what they fancied for dinner.

+++I've seen that done in movies. And it's just one more thing I'm convinced I could possibly learn, but it's hard not to be overwhelmed watching experienced deaf people do it. Their hands and their fingers flying back and forth at breakneck speed until it all just becomes a blur.+++

Interestingly, BSL (British Sign Language) and ASL (American Sign Language) are completely different to each other.

+++I'm with you when it comes to unisex bathrooms or men becoming women and then competing against CIS women in athletic events.

Though, as per usual, this is one of those issues that I root existentially in dasein. And while it may be possible that someday science and philosophy will concoct a "resolution", in the interim all we can do is to note the reasons why we think about things like this as we do "here and now". And then the part where your reasons seem derived from an intuitive, Intrinsic Self, while my own are still hopelessly -- haplessly? -- drawn and quartered.+++

I think the term "cis" women is something of a slur, to be honest, implying that there are any other sort.

I don't begrudge anyone the right to dress how they like, and call themselves what they like. Where I draw the line, however, is in them forcing others to pretend to believe them.

+++Once I was a moral objectivist myself. Now, however, as a moral nihilist, I construe political interactions by and large as embedded either in conflicting goods going back thousands of years now unresolved or in political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

It's truly problematic however because on the one hand I find myself reacting to those newspaper headlines based on my own accumulated assumptions about the "human condition". On the other hand, nowadays, I'm almost always drawn and quartered, pulled and tugged ambivalently in many truly convoluted directions.+++

I always rely on my instinct for questions like that. If something feels wrong, then it probably is. At least for me.

[promethean75]

"I do, of course, realise how important they are to sighted people"

And that serves a reason, ya know. Everybody likes to say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but I'm telling you it ain't, mate. Physical beauty and health are objective qualities, and you can find in the sighted world unanimous aggreement about who's ugly and who isn't. Now, this doesn't make them 'bad' in any way (yet) other than in an aesthetic sense. However, again, what appears as ugly to us is the effect of an evolutionary warning system that tells us this person may not be in good health.

But in more cases than not, there are ugly people who are regularly healthy... so this warning system, this feeling of repulsion at the sight of someone, is both an anachronism and an atavism. Especially in today's hypersexualized world where golden ratios of beauty are everywhere in the media. Impossibly beautiful people excite and provoke that relic behavior in us of lusting after physically beautiful people.

Lol, only with the human species does an ugly member sustain a meaningful relationship with a beautiful mate. And this is because unlike other species, an ugly human can have many endearing qualities that make them tolerable to another beautiful human being.

You're lucky you don't have to go through this. Here's a tip, though. If you are the person appearing in your photos - who is a well above average looking person - then you need to be with a mate who is as good looking as you are or more. To do this, it is absolutely necessary to have a friend on speed dial so you can take a covert picture of the potential date, send it to the friend, and have them give you the go-ahead.

You can't trust smell, Maia. Plenty of ugly fat slouches smell great. And there are plenty of sexy lads that smell great too, so you have to hold out for them. Don't just go with the first whiff you get at a pagan campout and start getting all hot on a guy. You need to slow your roll and have a verification system in place to evaluate potential mates.

[promethean75]

Here's Maia, you guys. Maia, you would lol if you could see this. Some victoria model level girls are asked to sit blind folded on a stool in an empty room. A total Chad walks in without forewarning in a thousand-dollar suit, and lightly passes by the girls and leans in so they can smell his cologne, and they get all hot and bothered. Great commercial. Great because its so irredeemably corny.

https://youtu.be/81SzKgJTP8s

[Maia]

"I do, of course, realise how important they are to sighted people"

And that serves a reason, ya know. Everybody likes to say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but I'm telling you it ain't, mate. Physical beauty and health are objective qualities, and you can find in the sighted world unanimous aggreement about who's ugly and who isn't. Now, this doesn't make them 'bad' in any way (yet) other than in an aesthetic sense. However, again, what appears as ugly to us is the effect of an evolutionary warning system that tells us this person may not be in good health.

But in more cases than not, there are ugly people who are regularly healthy... so this warning system, this feeling of repulsion at the sight of someone, is both an anachronism and an atavism. Especially in today's hypersexualized world where golden ratios of beauty are everywhere in the media. Impossibly beautiful people excite and provoke that relic behavior in us of lusting after physically beautiful people.

Lol, only with the human species does an ugly member sustain a meaningful relationship with a beautiful mate. And this is because unlike other species, an ugly human can have many endearing qualities that make them tolerable to another beautiful human being.

You're lucky you don't have to go through this. Here's a tip, though. If you are the person appearing in your photos - who is a well above average looking person - then you need to be with a mate who is as good looking as you are or more. To do this, it is absolutely necessary to have a friend on speed dial so you can take a covert picture of the potential date, send it to the friend, and have them give you the go-ahead.

You can't trust smell, Maia. Plenty of ugly fat slouches smell great. And there are plenty of sexy lads that smell great too, so you have to hold out for them. Don't just go with the first whiff you get at a pagan campout and start getting all hot on a guy. You need to slow your roll and have a verification system in place to evaluate potential mates.

Thank you for the compliment. I'm not really sure how adept I would be in taking a covert picture of someone, though. I don't know if you ever saw my old profile pic at ILP, which I took myself in front of a mirror using my brother's camera, but even then, he had to direct me. In other words, I doubt if I could pull it off, without being noticed.

I agree that there's a very good evolutionary reason why the concept of physical beauty exists, and also that such biological instincts are always, of necessity, imprecise, and might get it wrong in any particular instance. But I would add that a person's natural smell (which can't be masked by artificial scents), their pheromones, are just as good a guide to health and fitness as their looks, and, indeed, probably a much better one. So much so, in fact, that I strongly suspect that sighted people use this too, in judging someone's suitability as a partner, the only difference being that in most cases they do it subconsciously. As for whether someone is fat, or tall, or whatever, I can tell that by echolocation, even before I get near them. Voice is important too, of course, and gives me their approximate age, though smell also helps in this.

And all this is before they've said anything substantive. After talking to them a bit, just a couple of sentences, I can then form an opinion as to their intelligence, which is always the final deciding factor.

[Age]

"I do, of course, realise how important they are to sighted people"

And that serves a reason, ya know. Everybody likes to say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but I'm telling you it ain't, mate. Physical beauty and health are objective qualities, and you can find in the sighted world unanimous aggreement about who's ugly and who isn't. Now, this doesn't make them 'bad' in any way (yet) other than in an aesthetic sense. However, again, what appears as ugly to us is the effect of an evolutionary warning system that tells us this person may not be in good health.

But in more cases than not, there are ugly people who are regularly healthy... so this warning system, this feeling of repulsion at the sight of someone, is both an anachronism and an atavism. Especially in today's hypersexualized world where golden ratios of beauty are everywhere in the media. Impossibly beautiful people excite and provoke that relic behavior in us of lusting after physically beautiful people.

Lol, only with the human species does an ugly member sustain a meaningful relationship with a beautiful mate. And this is because unlike other species, an ugly human can have many endearing qualities that make them tolerable to another beautiful human being.

You're lucky you don't have to go through this. Here's a tip, though. If you are the person appearing in your photos - who is a well above average looking person - then you need to be with a mate who is as good looking as you are or more. To do this, it is absolutely necessary to have a friend on speed dial so you can take a covert picture of the potential date, send it to the friend, and have them give you the go-ahead.

You can't trust smell, Maia. Plenty of ugly fat slouches smell great. And there are plenty of sexy lads that smell great too, so you have to hold out for them. Don't just go with the first whiff you get at a pagan campout and start getting all hot on a guy. You need to slow your roll and have a verification system in place to evaluate potential mates.

Thank you for the compliment. I'm not really sure how adept I would be in taking a covert picture of someone, though. I don't know if you ever saw my old profile pic at ILP, which I took myself in front of a mirror using my brother's camera, but even then, he had to direct me. In other words, I doubt if I could pull it off, without being noticed.

I agree that there's a very good evolutionary reason why the concept of physical beauty exists, and also that such biological instincts are always, of necessity, imprecise, and might get it wrong in any particular instance. But I would add that a person's natural smell (which can't be masked by artificial scents), their pheromones, are just as good a guide to health and fitness as their looks, and, indeed, probably a much better one. So much so, in fact, that I strongly suspect that sighted people use this too, in judging someone's suitability as a partner, the only difference being that in most cases they do it subconsciously. As for whether someone is fat, or tall, or whatever, I can tell that by echolocation, even before I get near them. Voice is important too, of course, and gives me their approximate age, though smell also helps in this.

And all this is before they've said anything substantive. After talking to them a bit, just a couple of sentences, I can then form an opinion as to their intelligence, which is always the final deciding factor.

There is also 'touch', itself, which helps the visually blind to 'see', and understand, 'the beauty, or ugliness', of the other.

Contrary to what "promethean75" was 'trying to' claim, the visually disadvantaged can sometimes 'see' and understand the beauty within or from others better.

The visual beauty that "promethean75" claims is an objective quality just SHOWS how shallow adult human beings had become, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

And, exactly like "maia" pointed out 'real beauty' can NOT be REALLY 'masked' by 'make up', perfumes, nor gyms.

ALL human beings, like ALL living things, start out absolutely beautiful, that is; until human made products RUIN those things.

It is the REAL One 'within' human bodies WHERE REAL BEAUTY IS.

But, AGAIN, that is until THAT One gets literally RUINED from being SPOILT, and/or ABUSED.

[iambiguous]

And yet for tens of millions around the globe, the bane of human existence is the fact that others refuse to share their own.

What I enjoy most about our exchange is the fact that we seem to share this frame of mind. We have our own personal thoughts and feelings about of the world around us, but we're not out to chisel them in stone. And certainly not intent on imposing one or another rendition of "or else" on those who refuse to think as we do.

I would certainly never want to impose my opinions on anyone else.

Where this is trickiest for me, however, is in regard to raising children. On the one hand, you might encourage them to "just be yourself". Okay, but on the other hand, if in choosing this they choose behaviors that appall you, where do you draw the line?

One way or another [it seems to me] citizens in any particular community have to confront this quandary.

Yep, that's often how it all seems to unfold. Even in the secular world. I still recall back in my own days as a political activist how we often reserved our most vitriolic outrage for those on "our side" who refused to think like we did about the "bad guys". Factionalism we called it.

It seems to be a strange quirk of human nature.

Personally, I believe this revolves by and large around the fact that in regard to value judgments, reasonable arguments can be made pertaining to conflicting goods all up and down the moral and political spectrum. No one is yet able to demonstrate [at least to me] anything in the way of a deontological or essential or objective morality.

On the other hand, some might argue that if nature itself deemed it biologically imperative for girls and boys to experience sexual arousal as early as 8 or 9 who are we to repress that until they are 16 or 18? And of course, this revolves by and large around Life expectancy. Centuries ago, you could expect to live to around 30 to 32 years.

It's also a biological imperative to kill anyone who threatens us or our children. One of the functions of civilisation is to circumvent such biological imperatives, to the extent that this is possible.

Of course, regarding our own behaviors, they often revolve around how we go about connecting the dots between biological imperatives and civilization. For any number of men and women, we are still basically just naked apes.

By and large it would seem in countries that embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise in regard to behaviors that precipitate conflicts there's more opportunity for give and take. That and the role that political economy plays in sustaining what some deem to be one or another rendition of the "Deep State'.

Another aspect of civilisation.

For some however political economy will always be the place to start. The golden rule: them that own the gold rule. And all that stuff Marx speculated about.

But then the tricky part where some argue that, given the biological imperatives rooted in testosterone, men are all but preprogramed genetically to shag anything that moves. In other words, some like Satyr have considerably more entrenched views regarding gender roles and sexuality. Their own rendition of natural behavior revolves almost entirely around their own rendition of biological imperatives.

History tells us that those societies that are able to tame such biological imperatives, and channel them into other areas, are the ones that become great civilisations. Just trying to suppress them, however, doesn't work.

Not only that but for some like Wilhelm Reich, sexual repression is a crucial component of political repression. It's not for nothing that many religious denominations practice it, well, religiously.

As long as you are out in the world interacting with others, you can never really know for sure what is -- or who is -- around that next corner.

And then this part: https://youtu.be/bOH-toABAG8?si=lrJtTgw8RPQEFmsU&t=12

I suppose that's why online dating sites are so popular. Members can exchange information about themselves that either appeals to you or it doesn't. Is that something that might appeal to you...a personal ad? On the other hand, are there sites that include both sighted and blind members?

Just out of curiosity, how would you describe yourself to a potential date?

Then the expression "blind date": "a romantic meeting between two people who have never met before." Here though it's not so much "looks" that count as the fact that you know almost nothing about the person you are going out on a date with. Though for others, of course, "looks" isn't everything...it's the only thing.

I've never really considered going on any dating sites, and, to be honest, never felt that I need to.

Well, for the past seven years of course it wouldn't have made much sense to. Unless, perhaps, you stressed that you were interested in a Platonic relationship. And though this is largely extempore, I suspect that given just how attractive you are, you wouldn't need to. Not that others wouldn't also be attracted to your intelligence and your accomplishments and your wit, of course, but there is just no getting around the role that physical attraction plays in "the dating game". In fact, the more interesting question for some is the extent to which this is rooted more in genes than in memes.

But that revolves around "looks", and this is something that would seem to be essentially moot to someone who was born blind. It may be a part of how others react to you but since I know almost nothing at all about your social interactions with others, I may be completely off track. It's sheer conjecture in other words.

There are a number of sites that cater for the blind community, but that's just another aspect of its insular and inward-looking nature, in my opinion, and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with those.

Well, if they help others to connect the dots between a life with or without a loving partner, some will be drawn to them. Most of my own relationships were, in fact, as a result of personal ads I placed in the now defunct City Paper.

Here's a site that notes advantages between dating a blind person and a sighted person. It's seems a bit tongue in cheek but some might find it interesting.

https://nfb.org/sites/default/files/ima ... 300219.htm

"In other words, as in any relationship, you have to be happy with yourself before you can make another person happy. The better your blindness skills, the less your blindness will become an issue in a relationship. Both sighted and blind persons will respect you more if you are capable and self-confident.

And that's basically you in a nutshell, right?

I don't know of any that are specifically set up to cater for both blind and sighted people. Unless, of course, you count the standard dating sites, which presumably don't bar blind people from joining. There are also Pagan ones too, incidentally, which, if I were to join any at all, would be a better option, I think.

Definitely. But then I'm someone who is more entrenched in the "birds of a feather flock together" rendition of romance rather than "opposites attract".

But even so, it's far better just to go to some Pagan event or festival. I'd have to meet someone in person, and, to put it bluntly, smell them, to know if I was physically attracted to them.

As with echolation, this is something I find both intriguing and daunting. What in particular do you smell? And there is actually a condition that describes those who are are born without the capacity to smell at all...congenital anosmia.

"Anosmia can be categorized into acquired anosmia and congenital anosmia. Acquired anosmia develops later in life due to various causes, such as upper respiratory infections, head trauma, or neurodegenerative diseases. In contrast, congenital anosmia is present from birth and is typically caused by genetic factors or developmental abnormalities of the olfactory system. While acquired anosmia may have potential treatments depending on the underlying cause, such as medications or surgery, congenital anosmia currently has no known cure, and management focuses on safety precautions and coping strategies." wiki

Then those extremely rare cases in which some are born without any sense at all. It's called "anesthesia totalis".

Also, the debate that revolves around pheromones. Do human beings have them? There's no scientific evidence apparently but just think of all the other animals that do. From meals to mates, smell is often the crucial component.

Embarrassed because you were blind? You had mentioned this before, as I recall. Of course, intimate relationships can get really, really complicated, really, really fast. All we can do then is to live and learn.

Yes, I think that was clearly the case, and that's why he felt the need, when he was with his mates, to say those things, to save face, as it were, claiming he felt sorry for me and was doing me a favour, and so on. He may, or may not, have actually thought that, but that's very much not the point.

Yes, you would appear to be well rid of him. On the other hand, if he was just playing the peer pressure game, well, most of us are familiar with how that can unfold. Especially if you've raised children. By the time they are in high school Mommy and Daddy are often in fierce competition with this peer group.

On the other hand, I am sighted and, if asked to describe someone standing right next to me, how hard can that be? It drives me crazy sometimes.

Perhaps you're partially face blind, or something.

Prosopagnosia: https://www.testmybrain.org/face-blindn ... dness.html

You can click on a link that tests whether or not you have this affliction. I took it and apparently I might have at least some measure of it.

Then this part: "The anatomical disease section includes 18 major categories with more than 26,000 diseases representing all areas of the body, including blood, bone, immune, muscle, and reproductive diseases.

26,000 diseases! What was God -- or mother nature? -- thinking?!

How about this...

How would you describe the flat you live in? You've never seen it at all but in regard to all of your other senses there are words able to convey a lot of information about it.

My flat is the ground floor of a converted former council house, built in around 1930, I believe, and part of a small terrace in a very small and secluded cul-de-sac. The front door is on the left of the house, leading into a small porch, then the house itself. Immediately ahead are the stairs, and the floor above is empty. To the right is another door, leading into my part of the house. The living room is about six metres by four and a half metres, with a bay window at one end, to the right as you enter it. I have a small, circular table in the middle, two wooden chairs, and an armchair. I also have some other chairs stacked up, in case of guests. I've been thinking about ordering some bean bags, but haven't got round to it yet. After entering the room and turning left, on the left, against the wall, is a bookcase, stuffed full of various Braille books and magazines. Ahead, against the far wall, at the opposite end of the room to the bay window, is another such bookcase, on top of which is an embossed globe, labelled in Braille, which I've had since I was little. To the left, beyond the first bookcase, is the door to the bedroom, which is about half the size of the living room. At the far end of the living room, to the left of the bookcase with the globe, is the door to the kitchen, which is quite cluttered with a fridge, a freezer, washing machine and dryer, and a cooker that doesn't currently work. To the right of the kitchen is a door that leads to a very small storeroom, and the bathroom. Directly ahead is the door to the conservatory, which runs along the back of the house but is only about a metre and a half wide, and beyond that, the back garden. The only way of getting to the back garden is through my flat, so it's essentially mine. There's another way into it through an entryway that runs alongside the house, but I keep the door to that permanently bolted from the inside.

Wow. I mean...wow!

But then it dawned on me that this was actually a question that particular blind people might consider...insulting? Of course they can describe the place they live. The objects in a flat don't have to be seen to describe them. They only have to be correctly named given an understanding of what they are used for.

In other words, "the seven years are up at the winter solstice this year."

Seriously, after seven years, is this something you are looking forward to? Have you thought through a plan to find the right person, or are you just going to leave it up to...fate? To, uh, blind luck?

Though, indeed, we are getting closer and closer to Saturday, December 21, 2024, 4:19 AM. No more commitment after that. So, don't forget to set the alarm. On the other hand, again, do you have any new plans as to how things might change for you? In other words, in the romance department there's leaving it all up to luck or you think up ways to make your own luck.

I'm very much going to leave it to fate. I wasn't being particularly serious when I mentioned the Christmas party at work, as I already know everyone who'll be there, and my guess is that if anything happens, it'll be at some Pagan event or other.

Well, the more of them you go to, the greater the odds of finding someone actually able to appreciate you.

Just out of curiousity, were the Pagans you interacted with over the past 7 years aware of your commiment to celebacy? Or is that something that you kept to yourself...a personal commitment to the Goddess?

Not that I get a chance to go to all that many these days, what with work commitments and all, but who knows? It's not as if I haven't had guys asking me out, but I didn't really feel attracted to any of them. Now, perhaps, I'll be more willing to give them a chance.

Oh, I would imagine any number of guys would ask you out. If you could see yourself as we do, for example. But what is always more crucial, of course, are all the other parts of you.

Still, one never really knows about these things. If the right person does come around and it's a woman...? In fact, my own marriage was an open relationship towards the end. I was free to see other women, and so was she. If you get my drift.

It's just that in being as pretty as you are, your own "looks" are going to be a factor among some sighted men. You may not be thinking about it in that way but any number of them will be.

Is this something you have discussed with both your sighted and blind friends?

Thank you for the compliment. As to whether I might feel attracted to a woman, I tend to doubt it, to be honest. I'm not particular proud of the previous occasion, since it was shortly after I'd split up with my boyfriend under the aforementioned unpleasant circumstances, and I'd had a bit to drink.

Human sexuality is always tricky here. Some argue that homosexuality is not natural, whereas others insists that, on the contrary, for a small percentage of the population, it's how they came into this world. It may not be normal, they acknowledge, but how could it possibly be unnatural given that human beings are themselves a part of nature?

The same with beauty. In particular the human face. Some argue that beauty will always be in the mind of the beholder. Others rebut that and argue instead that certain features of the human face, arranged in particular ways are just naturally more appealing.

Back perhaps to the quandary of where genes gives way to memes here?

Which is one of the reasons, incidentally, that I decided to cut out booze altogether, though I hasten to add that I was never a big drinker, perhaps the odd glass of wine or two, even at Pagan gatherings, where the usual practice is for everyone to get so blind drunk that they can hardly stand up.

Yeah, that's about how I would imagine Pagans interacting at such events. Nothing in excess. From booze to the bedroom? Yet there you are, basically the outlier. Or is that not really the case at all?

When push comes to shove though some will go in one direction, others in another. That, in my view, is rooted existentially in dasein. Only someone who has lived a life almost identical to our own has a chance of coming at least close to understanding why we do the things we do.

Unless, of course, that's wrong.

I don't remember ever discussing the subject of someone else's looks in any great depth, other than the odd comment here and there.

Well, perhaps others, in knowing you are blind, might be hesitant to bring it up.

And then of course the part where beauty is a multi-billion dollar industry. Selling us anything and everything imagainable to make us think that we can come closer to it.

I do, of course, realise how important they are to sighted people, and take care of myself, for that reason, and also because it makes me feel better. This includes asking the opinions of sighted friends.

There have been any number of experiments that revovled around beauty. Around the advantages and disadvantages of being attractive.

For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31977501/

"Conclusion: This is the first pilot study demonstrating with supporting evidence that blind individuals can detect beauty and supports that beauty may rely on primal forms of messaging that are subconsciously appreciated."

Detecting beauty subconsciously? Or, perhaps, unconsciously? As if figuring out things like this wasn't hard enough regarding the things that we are actually conscious of.

And I hope that remains something you are able to sustain on into the future. But, again, for me it's still grappling to understand [better than I do now] that gap between, on the one hand, having once been sighted and then losing your vision and then on the other hand, never, ever having had any vision at all.

That's the sort of exchange that would be truly interesting to explore. A discussion between someone blind from birth and someone who was once able to see for years but then lost their vision. What parts might overlap and be readily communicated and what parts might not be.

Here's another video from Tommy Edison that explores this very thing: https://youtu.be/RiG97xFPJvo?si=m98o3AYa03a1ohqF

They raised some interesting points in that. I can certainly relate to the one about keeping your eyes open, as this is indeed a bit of an effort, at times. As a general rule, if I'm wearing my prostheses, I make a point of keeping my eyes open, as it rather defeats the object, otherwise.

Yes, one more thing that had never even crossed my mind until, well, right now. Then the part where Tommy basically agrees with Christine that losing your sight would be particular traumatic.

Tommy: "I think if I had vision and lost it, I don't think I would be as much fun as I am today. I think I would be a real crank. I think I'd be very angry and upset. I feel so much better knowing what I'm not missing. If I knew what I was missing, I think I'd be very upset about it. This way, I don't know and I can completely do things my own way and it's all good. To know what I am missing I think would drive me crazy."

That's what I have trouble understanding most I suppose. I keep going back and forth. But, of course, that's all in my head. I wasn't born blind and so far my vision remains intact. I can only try to educate myself more regarding blindness.

What was particularly interesting [to me] was the part where Christine explained how she is still able to dream in "full vision", but then every morning when she wakes up she has to deal with the fact that she is blind.

As for whether I'd try some sort of experimental surgery to provide me with vision, the answer is no, I wouldn't. I'm not going to have people sticking things into my brain, for anything. If it was guaranteed both 100% safe and 100% effective (and nothing ever could be, of course), I might think twice, but as it is, definitely not.

Of course, each individual will be reacting to this given his or her own unique set of circumstances. Though if you could once see and there was a new medical breakthrough that would bring vision back into your world, you would probably react more like Christine. Because you do know what you are missing in becoming blind.

And as for clothes, well, unless I'm doing something special, I usually just wear my work uniform, whether or not I'm at work, since I have lots of each item and just order them from Amazon. I do, indeed, sometimes go shopping with friends for things, but probably not as often as I should.

Well, that would never be a problem for me. Why? Because the only clothes I've worn now for years are tee-shirts and jeans.

I'm curious. If, someday, you were able to see who or what would you want to see first?

Hmm, that's a tricky one. My family, I suppose.

Though I suspect that right after them would be nature itself? Or is that something you would prefer to experience as you do now?

Then there are stories like this one: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story? ... 802&page=1

He had been blind since age 3.

YouTube video: https://youtu.be/jaEXi7VRF74?si=UzFTzsQ_6-9ZMoIc

Here again, what would be interesting [to me] is an exchange between those born deaf and those born blind discussing the subject of communication.

One take:

"A conversation between someone born deaf and someone born blind might revolve around their unique experiences navigating the world without sight or hearing, comparing how they perceive and interact with their environment, discussing challenges related to communication, and exploring the ways they use their heightened senses to understand the world around them, potentially including topics like the tactile nature of sign language for the deaf person and the importance of detailed descriptions for the blind person to grasp concepts."

Then again, it might revolve around where they went on holiday that year, or what they fancied for dinner.

It can revolve around practically anything. But each in their own way, they have acquired communication skills that might be useful between them.

I've seen that done in movies. And it's just one more thing I'm convinced I could possibly learn, but it's hard not to be overwhelmed watching experienced deaf people do it. Their hands and their fingers flying back and forth at breakneck speed until it all just becomes a blur.

Interestingly, BSL (British Sign Language) and ASL (American Sign Language) are completely different to each other.

That seems strange. Here's one take on it: https://www.interpretcloud.com/blog/ame ... 0letter(s).

Is there anything like this in the blind community? Books written in braille might be in different languages but aren't the raised dots more or less interchangeable in regard to letters?

From wiki:

"The goal of 'braille uniformity' is to unify the braille alphabets of the world as much as possible, so that literacy in one braille alphabet readily transfers to another. Unification was first achieved by a convention of the International Congress on Work for the Blind in 1878, where it was decided to replace the mutually incompatible national conventions of the time with the French values of the basic Latin alphabet, both for languages that use Latin-based alphabets and, through their Latin equivalents, for languages that use other scripts. However, the unification did not address letters beyond these 26, leaving French and German Braille partially incompatible and as braille spread to new languages with new needs, national conventions again became disparate. A second round of unification was undertaken under the auspices of UNESCO in 1951, setting the foundation for international braille usage today."

I'm with you when it comes to unisex bathrooms or men becoming women and then competing against CIS women in athletic events.

Though, as per usual, this is one of those issues that I root existentially in dasein. And while it may be possible that someday science and philosophy will concoct a "resolution", in the interim all we can do is to note the reasons why we think about things like this as we do "here and now". And then the part where your reasons seem derived from an intuitive, Intrinsic Self, while my own are still hopelessly -- haplessly? -- drawn and quartered.

I think the term "cis" women is something of a slur, to be honest, implying that there are any other sort.

I've seen it pop up in various exchanges here. I thought it simply refered to those who genderwise think of themselves as the embodiment of the sexuality/gender they were born with.

This is from Merriam-Webster:

"Are 'cisgender,' 'cisgendered,' and 'cis' slurs? A slur is a word or phrase that is intended to insult or disparage someone. A term that is neutral can become a slur over time, but our current evidence shows that cisgender and its variants are overwhelmingly used neutrally."

I don't begrudge anyone the right to dress how they like, and call themselves what they like. Where I draw the line, however, is in them forcing others to pretend to believe them.

Not sure what you mean. There are lots of people who have little or no problem believing they are genuine. On the other hand, I have had almost no personal experiences [that I can recall] regarding this. I just think it goes too far in regard to unisex bathrooms and athletics.

Once I was a moral objectivist myself. Now, however, as a moral nihilist, I construe political interactions by and large as embedded either in conflicting goods going back thousands of years now unresolved or in political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

It's truly problematic however because on the one hand I find myself reacting to those newspaper headlines based on my own accumulated assumptions about the "human condition". On the other hand, nowadays, I'm almost always drawn and quartered, pulled and tugged ambivalently in many truly convoluted directions.

I always rely on my instinct for questions like that. If something feels wrong, then it probably is. At least for me.

That doesn't work for me, alas, because I have thought myself into believing that human intuition is itself no less the embodiment of dasein.

[Maia]

+++Where this is trickiest for me, however, is in regard to raising children. On the one hand, you might encourage them to "just be yourself". Okay, but on the other hand, if in choosing this they choose behaviors that appall you, where do you draw the line?

One way or another [it seems to me] citizens in any particular community have to confront this quandary.+++

Yes, with children, it's different. A very good friend of mine decided to home school her kids, and has never regretted it.

+++For some however political economy will always be the place to start. The golden rule: them that own the gold rule. And all that stuff Marx speculated about.+++

I've never read any Marx, I must admit, and I strongly suspect that it wouldn't appeal to me at all.

+++Not only that but for some like Wilhelm Reich, sexual repression is a crucial component of political repression. It's not for nothing that many religious denominations practice it, well, religiously.+++

I've heard of him. He was something of an eccentric, I believe.

+++Well, for the past seven years of course it wouldn't have made much sense to. Unless, perhaps, you stressed that you were interested in a Platonic relationship. And though this is largely extempore, I suspect that given just how attractive you are, you wouldn't need to. Not that others wouldn't also be attracted to your intelligence and your accomplishments and your wit, of course, but there is just no getting around the role that physical attraction plays in "the dating game". In fact, the more interesting question for some is the extent to which this is rooted more in genes than in memes.

But that revolves around "looks", and this is something that would seem to be essentially moot to someone who was born blind. It may be a part of how others react to you but since I know almost nothing at all about your social interactions with others, I may be completely off track. It's sheer conjecture in other words.+++

Thank you, again, for the compliment.

+++Well, if they help others to connect the dots between a life with or without a loving partner, some will be drawn to them. Most of my own relationships were, in fact, as a result of personal ads I placed in the now defunct City Paper.+++

I'm certainly not criticising anyone who chooses to use such a site, it's just that I don't think I would ever want to.

+++Here's a site that notes advantages between dating a blind person and a sighted person. It's seems a bit tongue in cheek but some might find it interesting.

https://nfb.org/sites/default/files/ima ... 300219.htm

"In other words, as in any relationship, you have to be happy with yourself before you can make another person happy. The better your blindness skills, the less your blindness will become an issue in a relationship. Both sighted and blind persons will respect you more if you are capable and self-confident.

And that's basically you in a nutshell, right?+++

Yes, it is. Or at least, I thought it was.

When I decided, all those years ago, on leaving school, that I would not go down the easy route of just being part of the blind community, I knew, of course, that there would be challenges, and that not all sighted people are as comfortable around blind people as others. And that this, in turn, would limit the number of potential partners I might have. I know full well how important looks are to sighted people, but there are always other factors, and there is no doubt that being blind puts some people off. And that's something I've known all along, and accepted.

+++Definitely. But then I'm someone who is more entrenched in the "birds of a feather flock together" rendition of romance rather than "opposites attract".+++

Yes, I agree. And when I think of who my own birds of a feather are, I think of Pagans.

+++As with echolation, this is something I find both intriguing and daunting. What in particular do you smell? And there is actually a condition that describes those who are are born without the capacity to smell at all...congenital anosmia.

"Anosmia can be categorized into acquired anosmia and congenital anosmia. Acquired anosmia develops later in life due to various causes, such as upper respiratory infections, head trauma, or neurodegenerative diseases. In contrast, congenital anosmia is present from birth and is typically caused by genetic factors or developmental abnormalities of the olfactory system. While acquired anosmia may have potential treatments depending on the underlying cause, such as medications or surgery, congenital anosmia currently has no known cure, and management focuses on safety precautions and coping strategies." wiki+++

That's why I really don't like having a cold. It bungs me up and messes with both my sense of smell and my echolocation. It's probably fair to describe it as quite disabling, in fact.

+++Then those extremely rare cases in which some are born without any sense at all. It's called "anesthesia totalis".+++

Sounds extremely scary. Things like that make us realise just how lucky we are to have all, or at least most, of our faculties.

+++Also, the debate that revolves around pheromones. Do human beings have them? There's no scientific evidence apparently but just think of all the other animals that do. From meals to mates, smell is often the crucial component.+++

Take it from me, humans definitely have pheromones.

+++Yes, you would appear to be well rid of him. On the other hand, if he was just playing the peer pressure game, well, most of us are familiar with how that can unfold. Especially if you've raised children. By the time they are in high school Mommy and Daddy are often in fierce competition with this peer group.+++

The fact that he felt the need to say those things because of peer pressure just proves how unsuitable he was. And I also suspect that the peer pressure was largely in his own mind, too. At least one of his mates was calling him out on some of the things he was saying, as I recall, but he just ploughed on, doubling down on it.

+++Prosopagnosia: https://www.testmybrain.org/face-blindn ... dness.html

You can click on a link that tests whether or not you have this affliction. I took it and apparently I might have at least some measure of it.

Then this part: "The anatomical disease section includes 18 major categories with more than 26,000 diseases representing all areas of the body, including blood, bone, immune, muscle, and reproductive diseases.

26,000 diseases! What was God -- or mother nature? -- thinking?!+++

Speaking as someone who is *completely* face blind, I fully empathise with your plight.

+++Wow. I mean...wow!

But then it dawned on me that this was actually a question that particular blind people might consider...insulting? Of course they can describe the place they live. The objects in a flat don't have to be seen to describe them. They only have to be correctly named given an understanding of what they are used for.+++

A bit humdrum, maybe, but not insulting.

As for objects, utensils, and so on, I always keep them in the same place, of course, so that I know where they are.

+++Well, the more of them you go to, the greater the odds of finding someone actually able to appreciate you.

Just out of curiousity, were the Pagans you interacted with over the past 7 years aware of your commiment to celebacy? Or is that something that you kept to yourself...a personal commitment to the Goddess?+++

I've discussed it with friends, but have never made a big issue out of it.

+++Oh, I would imagine any number of guys would ask you out. If you could see yourself as we do, for example. But what is always more crucial, of course, are all the other parts of you.+++

You mean the bits they can't see? Just kidding...

+++Human sexuality is always tricky here. Some argue that homosexuality is not natural, whereas others insists that, on the contrary, for a small percentage of the population, it's how they came into this world. It may not be normal, they acknowledge, but how could it possibly be unnatural given that human beings are themselves a part of nature?

The same with beauty. In particular the human face. Some argue that beauty will always be in the mind of the beholder. Others rebut that and argue instead that certain features of the human face, arranged in particular ways are just naturally more appealing.

Back perhaps to the quandary of where genes gives way to memes here?+++

Some might argue that not only is homosexuality perfectly natural, but it is, in fact, one of nature's responses to environmental pressures such as overcrowding and overpopulation.

+++Yeah, that's about how I would imagine Pagans interacting at such events. Nothing in excess. From booze to the bedroom? Yet there you are, basically the outlier. Or is that not really the case at all?+++

Pagans do, indeed, have something of a reputation as libertines, with their meetings being little more than drink and drug fuelled orgies, but this, to be honest, is a reputation carefully cultivated by Pagans themselves, and only then, by a certain faction among them. In all my years on the Pagan scene, I've only ever been at two events that could reasonably be described as orgies, and on neither occasion did I actually participate. Both of these were spontaneous happenings, and definitely not planned as such, and both were extremely embarrassing to be present at.

+++Well, perhaps others, in knowing you are blind, might be hesitant to bring it up.+++

Something that I'm all too familiar with.

+++And then of course the part where beauty is a multi-billion dollar industry. Selling us anything and everything imagainable to make us think that we can come closer to it.+++

Thankfully, I'm immune to all that.

+++There have been any number of experiments that revovled around beauty. Around the advantages and disadvantages of being attractive.

For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31977501/

"Conclusion: This is the first pilot study demonstrating with supporting evidence that blind individuals can detect beauty and supports that beauty may rely on primal forms of messaging that are subconsciously appreciated."

Detecting beauty subconsciously? Or, perhaps, unconsciously? As if figuring out things like this wasn't hard enough regarding the things that we are actually conscious of.+++

Very interesting. Perhaps, and this is pure speculation, beautiful individuals, that is, healthy and fit individuals, have more attractive pheromones.

+++Yes, one more thing that had never even crossed my mind until, well, right now. Then the part where Tommy basically agrees with Christine that losing your sight would be particular traumatic.

Tommy: "I think if I had vision and lost it, I don't think I would be as much fun as I am today. I think I would be a real crank. I think I'd be very angry and upset. I feel so much better knowing what I'm not missing. If I knew what I was missing, I think I'd be very upset about it. This way, I don't know and I can completely do things my own way and it's all good. To know what I am missing I think would drive me crazy."

That's what I have trouble understanding most I suppose. I keep going back and forth. But, of course, that's all in my head. I wasn't born blind and so far my vision remains intact. I can only try to educate myself more regarding blindness.

What was particularly interesting [to me] was the part where Christine explained how she is still able to dream in "full vision", but then every morning when she wakes up she has to deal with the fact that she is blind.+++

Yes, I'm very glad that I never lost my sight. But then I suppose I would say that.

+++Of course, each individual will be reacting to this given his or her own unique set of circumstances. Though if you could once see and there was a new medical breakthrough that would bring vision back into your world, you would probably react more like Christine. Because you do know what you are missing in becoming blind.+++

Yes, I can well imagine that. Definitely not a situation that I'd like to be in.

+++Though I suspect that right after them would be nature itself? Or is that something you would prefer to experience as you do now?+++

It's not really something I've given much thought to. I can't actually imagine, in any meaningful sense, what it would add to my experience of those things.

+++Then there are stories like this one: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story? ... 802&page=1

He had been blind since age 3.

YouTube video: https://youtu.be/jaEXi7VRF74?si=UzFTzsQ_6-9ZMoIc+++

That must all be pretty daunting, to be honest. I'm not at all sure that I'd want to go through it, even if I could.

+++That seems strange. Here's one take on it: https://www.interpretcloud.com/blog/ame ... 0letter(s).

Is there anything like this in the blind community? Books written in braille might be in different languages but aren't the raised dots more or less interchangeable in regard to letters?+++

Different languages have their own specific rules but all use the same basic Braille characters, of course. There are also, incidentally, rules for things like musical scores and mathematical notation.

+++From wiki:

"The goal of 'braille uniformity' is to unify the braille alphabets of the world as much as possible, so that literacy in one braille alphabet readily transfers to another. Unification was first achieved by a convention of the International Congress on Work for the Blind in 1878, where it was decided to replace the mutually incompatible national conventions of the time with the French values of the basic Latin alphabet, both for languages that use Latin-based alphabets and, through their Latin equivalents, for languages that use other scripts. However, the unification did not address letters beyond these 26, leaving French and German Braille partially incompatible and as braille spread to new languages with new needs, national conventions again became disparate. A second round of unification was undertaken under the auspices of UNESCO in 1951, setting the foundation for international braille usage today."+++

Also bear in mind that there are two levels of Braille, Grade 1 and Grade 2. Grade 2 has lots of contractions, to take up less space.

Braille is a beautiful thing, and there's nothing quite like reading a book that you can actually hold, and curl up with on a comfy chair, for example, or in bed. Sadly, it may well be on the decline, because it's just so much easier and cheaper to use Kindle or Audible or any number of other services. And this is a very good thing, of course, but I do sometimes wonder how it affects people's literacy, if all they ever do is listen to stuff.

Without Braille, though, Braille displays wouldn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshab ... le_display

+++I've seen it pop up in various exchanges here. I thought it simply refered to those who genderwise think of themselves as the embodiment of the sexuality/gender they were born with.

This is from Merriam-Webster:

"Are 'cisgender,' 'cisgendered,' and 'cis' slurs? A slur is a word or phrase that is intended to insult or disparage someone. A term that is neutral can become a slur over time, but our current evidence shows that cisgender and its variants are overwhelmingly used neutrally."+++

I'm not a big fan of it.

+++Not sure what you mean. There are lots of people who have little or no problem believing they are genuine. On the other hand, I have had almost no personal experiences [that I can recall] regarding this. I just think it goes too far in regard to unisex bathrooms and athletics.+++

I'm sure there are people who genuinely believe they are the opposite sex. Doesn't mean they are, though. But even that isn't the real problem. The real problem is when others are forced, sometimes by law, to treat them as such.

[iambiguous]

Where this is trickiest for me, however, is in regard to raising children. On the one hand, you might encourage them to "just be yourself". Okay, but on the other hand, if in choosing this they choose behaviors that appall you, where do you draw the line?

One way or another [it seems to me] citizens in any particular community have to confront this quandary.

Yes, with children, it's different. A very good friend of mine decided to home school her kids, and has never regretted it.

Well, from my frame of mind, it's not so much where you are schooled but what you are taught. And then the extent to which those who are teaching it to you will allow you to question it, to challenge it, to reject it.

For some however political economy will always be the place to start. The golden rule: them that own the gold rule. And all that stuff Marx speculated about.

I've never read any Marx, I must admit, and I strongly suspect that it wouldn't appeal to me at all.

Yes, I strongly suspect you're right. I was once a Marxist myself. Now it is just one more frame of mind in which I am pulled and tugged in any number of conflicting directions.

Not only that but for some like Wilhelm Reich, sexual repression is a crucial component of political repression. It's not for nothing that many religious denominations practice it, well, religiously.

I've heard of him. He was something of an eccentric, I believe.

That's the part by and large that revolves around his "orgone energy accumulator". On the other hand, in The Irrational in Politics Maurice Brinton encompassed him quite another way altogether:

"In learning to obey their parents, children learn obedience in general. The deference learned in the family setting will manifest itself whenever the child faces a 'superior' in later life. Sexual repression----by the already sexually repressed parents---is an integral part of the conditioning process.

According to Reich, the 'suppression of natural sexuality in the child...makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, 'good', and 'adjusted' in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief the goal of sexual repression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all the misery and degradation....the result is fear of freedom, and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression aids political reaction, not only through this process which makes the mass individual passive and unpolitical, but also by creating in his structure an interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order'".

On the other hand, if this strikes you as unreasonable, or if you just don't have any particular interest "here and now" in pursuing it further, no problem. We both have acquired different understandings of things like this given the lives we've lived. Maybe we can close the gap and maybe not.

Well, for the past seven years of course it wouldn't have made much sense to. Unless, perhaps, you stressed that you were interested in a Platonic relationship. And though this is largely extempore, I suspect that given just how attractive you are, you wouldn't need to. Not that others wouldn't also be attracted to your intelligence and your accomplishments and your wit, of course, but there is just no getting around the role that physical attraction plays in "the dating game". In fact, the more interesting question for some is the extent to which this is rooted more in genes than in memes.

But that revolves around "looks", and this is something that would seem to be essentially moot to someone who was born blind. It may be a part of how others react to you but since I know almost nothing at all about your social interactions with others, I may be completely off track. It's sheer conjecture in other words.

Thank you, again, for the compliment.

With "looks" however it's not a compliment so much as, in my view, simply a description. Most beautiful women and handsome men did little more to acquire their "looks" than to, well, be born?

We come into the world more or less beautiful, or more or less ugly. And "naturally" that's just the luck of the draw. Some will be bothered by it more so than others. Some will ignore it more than others. It just comes down to how each of us as individuals have come to make such distinctions ourselves.

But to live in a world where it is not -- cannot -- be factored in at all? Or, perhaps, is of considerbly less importance? With looks for those born blind it would all seem to come down to what those who are sighted conveyed to them about it...or what they might have read about it or come upon it in movies and in TV programs.

Well, if they help others to connect the dots between a life with or without a loving partner, some will be drawn to them. Most of my own relationships were, in fact, as a result of personal ads I placed in the now defunct City Paper.

I'm certainly not criticising anyone who chooses to use such a site, it's just that I don't think I would ever want to.

It's always out there as an option if for whatever reason you change your mind about it.

Here's a site that notes advantages between dating a blind person and a sighted person. It seems a bit tongue in cheek, but some might find it interesting.

https://nfb.org/sites/default/files/ima ... 300219.htm

"In other words, as in any relationship, you have to be happy with yourself before you can make another person happy. The better your blindness skills, the less your blindness will become an issue in a relationship. Both sighted and blind persons will respect you more if you are capable and self-confident."

And that's basically you in a nutshell, right?

Yes, it is. Or at least, I thought it was.

Well, everything you have posted so far seems to be brimming over with self-confidence.

When I decided, all those years ago, on leaving school, that I would not go down the easy route of just being part of the blind community, I knew, of course, that there would be challenges, and that not all sighted people are as comfortable around blind people as others.

Would you say then that you are among a minority of those born blind who chose not to remain by and large in a blind community?

"How many people are born blind?

There are about 1.5 million blind children worldwide, and this number appears to be growing. Approximately 500,000 children become blind every year—one every minute—and about half of them die within one or two years of becoming blind." [NIH]

Why? Whether it be God or the universe itself, is there any comforting explanation for it?

And that this, in turn, would limit the number of potential partners I might have. I know full well how important looks are to sighted people, but there are always other factors, and there is no doubt that being blind puts some people off. And that's something I've known all along, and accepted.

That's always been around. The part where some people tend to react either with fear or hostility towards those who are, in some way, different from them. And here of course such ignorance can then sustain any number of stereotypes which muddy the waters all that more.

Misconceptions can then abound: https://lvib.org/programs/top-10-miscon ... nd-people/

Although, sure, among the blind themselves, there are no doubt also conflicting assessments of these things.

Definitely. But then I'm someone who is more entrenched in the "birds of a feather flock together" rendition of romance rather than "opposites attract".

Yes, I agree. And when I think of who my own birds of a feather are, I think of Pagans.

Then around them you should try to be as much as possible.

As with echolation, this is something I find both intriguing and daunting. What in particular do you smell? And there is actually a condition that describes those who are are born without the capacity to smell at all...congenital anosmia.

"Anosmia can be categorized into acquired anosmia and congenital anosmia. Acquired anosmia develops later in life due to various causes, such as upper respiratory infections, head trauma, or neurodegenerative diseases. In contrast, congenital anosmia is present from birth and is typically caused by genetic factors or developmental abnormalities of the olfactory system. While acquired anosmia may have potential treatments depending on the underlying cause, such as medications or surgery, congenital anosmia currently has no known cure, and management focuses on safety precautions and coping strategies." wiki

That's why I really don't like having a cold. It bungs me up and messes with both my sense of smell and my echolocation. It's probably fair to describe it as quite disabling, in fact.

What do you do then to minimize this? How about allergies? or moods?

Here's a CNN segment that explores echolocation:
https://youtu.be/WHYCs8xtzUI?si=MKFF5Us8r74gfWbF

Then those extremely rare cases in which some are born without any sense at all. It's called "anesthesia totalis".

Sounds extremely scary. Things like that make us realise just how lucky we are to have all, or at least most, of our faculties.

It's simply beyond my comprehending how on Earth anyone could learn to communicate if they were born senseless.. With Helen Keller, there was that crucial element of touch. Take that away and then what?

This from The Dinner Table website:

"What would it be like to be a person with no senses?

Imagine a baby is born with no senses. In hopes of one day being able to at least partially heal their child, the parents remain determined to keep the baby alive, doing so through an IV that provides all sustenance, tubes that handle excretion, machines that move the baby’s limbs as much as needed for healthy blood flow, etc. etc.—assume all physical needs are taken care of. Though the baby is never able to be healed, it successfully grows into a child, then into an adult and eventually to an old age, before dying of natural causes at 80.

"Throughout their life, repeated tests show that the person has a normally functioning conscious brain, just like the rest of us. But the person never sees, hears, feels, smells, or tastes anything. There’s nothing anyone can do to the person that the person will perceive, since there are no senses to perceive anything. The question is: What would it be like to be this person?"

Also, the debate that revolves around pheromones. Do human beings have them? There's no scientific evidence apparently but just think of all the other animals that do. From meals to mates, smell is often the crucial component.

Take it from me, humans definitely have pheromones.

How might that work with human beings? If we do have phermones how is this manifested sexually? With other animals its part of the biological imperatives that sustain the species by assuring reproduction. With humans however sex is often something pursued entirely for pleasure. There is no "mating season" for us. Human beings may well be as Darwin suggests the end result [so far] of biological evolution on Earth. But the gap between us and all the rest of nature is often nothing short of mind-boggling.

Yes, you would appear to be well rid of him. On the other hand, if he was just playing the peer pressure game, well, most of us are familiar with how that can unfold. Especially if you've raised children. By the time they are in high school Mommy and Daddy are often in fierce competition with this peer group.

The fact that he felt the need to say those things because of peer pressure just proves how unsuitable he was. And I also suspect that the peer pressure was largely in his own mind, too. At least one of his mates was calling him out on some of the things he was saying, as I recall, but he just ploughed on, doubling down on it.

There's no way I can truly understand this experience other than given the extent to which I understand what you are telling me about it. I can't be inside you, however, experiencing it myself so a "failure to communicate" is never out of the question regarding these things. At times, in fact, it is more the rule than the exception.

Prosopagnosia: https://www.testmybrain.org/face-blindn ... dness.html

You can click on a link that tests whether or not you have this affliction. I took it and apparently I might have at least some measure of it.

Then this part: "The anatomical disease section includes 18 major categories with more than 26,000 diseases representing all areas of the body, including blood, bone, immune, muscle, and reproductive diseases.

26,000 diseases! What was God -- or mother nature? -- thinking?!

Speaking as someone who is *completely* face blind, I fully empathise with your plight.

Ah, but no one would expect you to be otherwise. On the other hand, those like Brad Pitt -- https://youtu.be/qnfpn4myJJM?si=y22GnTA6P_PBVR-X -- are afflicted with it and you can't help but wonder what that is like for him. And as with many other such "neurological" conditions, some are born with it while others acquire it as a result of a disease or an injury. The sheer "spookiness" embedded in exploring the human brain!

Think, for example, of all the people described in the books by Oliver Sacks.

Wow. I mean...wow!

But then it dawned on me that this was actually a question that particular blind people might consider...insulting? Of course they can describe the place they live. The objects in a flat don't have to be seen to describe them. They only have to be correctly named given an understanding of what they are used for.

A bit humdrum, maybe, but not insulting.

As for objects, utensils, and so on, I always keep them in the same place, of course, so that I know where they are.

And there must be many things that blind men and women have thought up and shared in order to facilitate their day to day existence and their interactions with others.

And I would imagine that sighted people wonder from time to time, "how would a blind person do this or do that?" But that probably just reflects the fact that they could not imagine doing any number of things themselves if they were blind.

Well, the more of them you go to, the greater the odds of finding someone actually able to appreciate you.

Just out of curiousity, were the Pagans you interacted with over the past 7 years aware of your commiment to celibacy? Or is that something that you kept to yourself...a personal commitment to the Goddess?

I've discussed it with friends, but have never made a big issue out of it.

Well, friends would respect your personal commitments, but would also be willing to share with you anything they feel might be interest to you. Also, all the "gadgets/devices" now available online: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gadgets+for+ ... acsr54r2_e
And...
https://www.trendhunter.com/slideshow/a ... y-impaired

Here are the top five:
5] RFID walking sticks
4] spiral dial timepieces
3] porn for the blind
2] palm-placed navigators
1] motion sensor walkers

Oh, I would imagine any number of guys would ask you out. If you could see yourself as we do, for example. But what is always more crucial, of course, are all the other parts of you.

You mean the bits they can't see? Just kidding...

Now I'm trying to imagine just how this sort of thing is actually communicated between Pagan lovers when one is blind and the other is sighted. Or if both are blind? It's not so much about what is different, I suspect, and more about attempting to experience this difference with someone you love.

Human sexuality is always tricky here. Some argue that homosexuality is not natural, whereas others insists that, on the contrary, for a small percentage of the population, it's how they came into this world. It may not be normal, they acknowledge, but how could it possibly be unnatural given that human beings are themselves a part of nature?

The same with beauty. In particular the human face. Some argue that beauty will always be in the mind of the beholder. Others rebut that and argue instead that certain features of the human face, arranged in particular ways are just naturally more appealing.

Back perhaps to the quandary of where genes gives way to memes here?

Some might argue that not only is homosexuality perfectly natural, but it is, in fact, one of nature's responses to environmental pressures such as overcrowding and overpopulation.

That's where things really, really get tricky for me. The part where Pagans can't help but wonder if there is a teleological component to nature. Did Mother Nature "somehow" acquire the capacity to install/instill meaning and purpose in our lives? Or is it all just a manifestation of "brute facticity" as nature can sometimes appear.

Yeah, that's about how I would imagine Pagans interacting at such events. Nothing in excess. From booze to the bedroom? Yet there you are, basically the outlier. Or is that not really the case at all?

Pagans do, indeed, have something of a reputation as libertines, with their meetings being little more than drink and drug fuelled orgies, but this, to be honest, is a reputation carefully cultivated by Pagans themselves, and only then, by a certain faction among them.

Hmm...

So, there are Pagans who like others thinking that they are either at a bar or in a bedroom? Some, however, will no doubt root this more in a spiritual experience than others. Though it wouldn't surprise me at all if any number of Pagan men chose to become Pagans because, well, it will almost certainly increase their chances of finding...mates? Willing mate? If only from orgy to orgy?

In all my years on the Pagan scene, I've only ever been at two events that could reasonably be described as orgies, and on neither occasion did I actually participate. Both of these were spontaneous happenings, and definitely not planned as such, and both were extremely embarrassing to be present at.

Again, each of us is going to act and react differently in regard to sexuality. No "one size fits all" here of course. So, you will either find someone who feels more or less the same as you do, and let the passion revolve around this, or you meet someone who introduces you to a whole other sexual universe. "The Richard Flax Syndrome", some here in Baltimore once called it.

Well, perhaps others, in knowing you are blind, might be hesitant to bring it up.

Something that I'm all too familiar with.

But with close friends that would be something you've discussed, right? So, as long as you are able to sustain these close friendships, new friendships are like a bonus?

And then of course the part where beauty is a multi-billion dollar industry. Selling us anything and everything imagainable to make us think that we can come closer to it.

Thankfully, I'm immune to all that.

Yes, that's far more likely to be the case. Then it comes down to sighted friends respecting this.

There have been any number of experiments that revovled around beauty. Around the advantag es and disadvantages of being attractive.

For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31977501/

"Conclusion: This is the first pilot study demonstrating with supporting evidence that blind individuals can detect beauty and supports that beauty may rely on primal forms of messaging that are subconsciously appreciated."

Detecting beauty subconsciously? Or, perhaps, unconsciously? As if figuring out things like this wasn't hard enough regarding the things that we are actually conscious of.

Very interesting. Perhaps, and this is pure speculation, beautiful individuals, that is, healthy and fit individuals, have more attractive pheromones.

Then we are confronted with why on Earth Mother Nature would create a biological gap like this. With God there is usually Sin involved...and His "mysterious ways". But what with nature?

Yes, one more thing that had never even crossed my mind until, well, right now. Then the part where Tommy basically agrees with Christine that losing your sight would be particular traumatic.

Tommy: "I think if I had vision and lost it, I don't think I would be as much fun as I am today. I think I would be a real crank. I think I'd be very angry and upset. I feel so much better knowing what I'm not missing. If I knew what I was missing, I think I'd be very upset about it. This way, I don't know and I can completely do things my own way and it's all good. To know what I am missing I think would drive me crazy."

That's what I have trouble understanding most I suppose. I keep going back and forth. But, of course, that's all in my head. I wasn't born blind and so far my vision remains intact. I can only try to educate myself more regarding blindness.

What was particularly interesting [to me] was the part where Christine explained how she is still able to dream in "full vision", but then every morning when she wakes up she has to deal with the fact that she is blind.

Yes, I'm very glad that I never lost my sight. But then I suppose I would say that.

Well, it's not like it can ever really be pinned down, I suspect. "Resolved: being born blind is less devastating than going blind later in life".

Of course, each individual will be reacting to this given his or her own unique set of circumstances. Though if you could once see and there was a new medical breakthrough that would bring vision back into your world, you would probably react more like Christine. Because you do know what you are missing in becoming blind.

Yes, I can well imagine that. Definitely not a situation that I'd like to be in.

Of course, it's not difficult to imagine someone like her thinking how lucky she actually might be...able, at least, to use the years when she had vision to make her life now more familiar, more sustainable. But then over and over and over again, I always come back to dasein. Our own uniquely personal lives predisposing us to think and feel and say and do things that had our lives been very different we might never have opted to convey at all.

Though I suspect that right after them would be nature itself? Or is that something you would prefer to experience as you do now?

It's not really something I've given much thought to. I can't actually imagine, in any meaningful sense, what it would add to my experience of those things.

The part where even if you could see...not much would really "for all practical purposes" change in your life? But that's all moot anyway because from your frame of mind "here and now" that will almost certainly never become a possibility?

Then there are stories like this one: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story? ... 802&page=1

He had been blind since age 3.

YouTube video: https://youtu.be/jaEXi7VRF74?si=UzFTzsQ_6-9ZMoIc

That must all be pretty daunting, to be honest. I'm not at all sure that I'd want to go through it, even if I could.

Me, I'm more inclined to suspect that I would be willing to go through it. But, again, as with Christine, that no doubt would revolve around regaining something that was very important to me. Whereas had I been born blind I would probably be more inclined to embody Tommy's frame of mind.

That seems strange. Here's one take on it: https://www.interpretcloud.com/blog/ame ... 0letter(s).

Is there anything like this in the blind community? Books written in braille might be in different languages but aren't the raised dots more or less interchangeable in regard to letters?

Different languages have their own specific rules but all use the same basic Braille characters, of course. There are also, incidentally, rules for things like musical scores and mathematical notation.

So, unlike with the BSL and the ASL systems for those born deaf, that's less of a problem in regard to braille for those born blind? Though, of course, many will wonder, "what about the publications that are not available in braille?".

From the Braille Superstore:

"Because Braille books are so expensive to make, bookstores for the blind only have a limited number of novels available. Though our selection covers a wide range of interests, even we don't have thousands of titles to pick from. Don't despair, though, because we've put together a list of Bestsellers for Adults."

From Book Trust site:

"Only 7 per cent of published books are available in formats that help visually impaired readers - and less than 2 per cent are braille."

Or, perhaps, those not available for publication can, as you noted, still be obtained given all of the audible books out there?

Also bear in mind that there are two levels of Braille, Grade 1 and Grade 2. Grade 2 has lots of contractions, to take up less space.

With those born deaf, much of what is communicated in sign language seems to include a ton of shortcuts. In other words, some signs seem to encompass entire mental and emotional states in one gesture. Is there anything like that in regard to braille?

Without Braille, though, Braille displays wouldn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshab ... le_display

As is often the case in reading about this sort of technology, I'm in way, way, way over my head. Sometimes I find myself wondering if all of these extraordinary technological devices might indicate instead a world that doesn't even really exist at all. It's like our realty is actually more in sync with the citizens from the movie Dark City. Or The Matrix.

I've seen it pop up in various exchanges here. I thought it simply referred to those who genderwise think of themselves as the embodiment of the sexuality/gender they were born with.

This is from Merriam-Webster:

"Are 'cisgender,' 'cisgendered,' and 'cis' slurs? A slur is a word or phrase that is intended to insult or disparage someone. A term that is neutral can become a slur over time, but our current evidence shows that cisgender and its variants are overwhelmingly used neutrally."

I'm not a big fan of it.

Of course, there's the part where particular philosophers among us might insist that, in using the tools of philosophy, we can pin down what all rational men and women are obligated to think about it.

Not sure what you mean. There are lots of people who have little or no problem believing they are genuine. On the other hand, I have had almost no personal experiences [that I can recall] regarding this. I just think it goes too far in regard to unisex bathrooms and athletics.

I'm sure there are people who genuinely believe they are the opposite sex. Doesn't mean they are, though. But even that isn't the real problem. The real problem is when others are forced, sometimes by law, to treat them as such.

Yes, and to the extent this includes unibathrooms and unisports, I'm all the more -- or, perhaps, less? -- "fractured and fragmented". Though, I'm still convinced judgments of this sort are largely rooted subjectively in dasein. There's what individuals believe about it given the arguments I make and there's the gap between what I believe about it "here and now" and all that can be understood about it given an explanation for how and why the human condition exists at all, let alone where mere mortals here on planet Earth fit into all there can be known about existence itself.

Some, however, will actually take comfort in thinking this is true. I know that from time to time I do.

[attofishpi]

+++Absolutely we are all part of Earth while we are alive. When we are dead our matter can return to Earth or shoot off into space. Earth might be missing some elements but that is all, rather miniscule really.

Personally, I think our 'soul' is a mere pointer within (living) matter (computer programming stuff). The GOD has made our REAL_IT_Y as efficient as possible, and I comprehend reason for that. Once the encompassing matter is dead it matters not what happens to it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to power turbines and create clean energy from our dead bodies +++

I think nature, that is, evolution, has made living things as efficient as practicable, within the limits of what was available to work with

I agree.

..but I wouldn't ascribe any intelligence or plan to this. And I certainly wouldn't use any computer analogy.

Well you'll again disagree with me, but you should. There are so many things about the nature of computers that correlate to the nature of our ability to perceive reality, apart from the elephant fact that computers have no actual ability to perceive anything - just measure and calculate, no qualia at all.

+++I understand that. Whenever I have gone to confession (about the only time I bother venturing into a church) I see some of the same people, all ready to eat and drink Christ. Rituals are rather daft. Christ stated do this in memory of me --- he didn't say do it every friggin day, week etc..

GOD is not impressed with daft people...those that are sheep and don't think for themselves.+++

The only Christian services I've ever attended are things like weddings and funerals. Personally, I wouldn't be able to find a spiritual connection stuck inside a stuffy building, but that's just me. As always, each of us is different.

Honestly I've never been inside a church and considered it 'stuffy' in any way. Houses are often stuffy, but the big old stone churches are so beautiful inside and out. I sometimes go to St Francis Xavier Cathedral (very rarely) but at the right time in the afternoon the sunlight streams through the stained glass windows, honestly if ever you have a vision in a dream I will pray that is the first one.

+++Yes, not my version. Last time I checked WIKI Pantheism is defined as having no personal attribute GOD -- basically, a Spinozan version of "GOD" ...ridiculous. So for years I considered then I must be a Panentheist which does allow for a willing personal GOD, but then GOD has to be outside of the perceivable universe - again, a logic fail.

Thus, and alas, I must redefine Pantheism to suit myself. ALL REALITY IS GOD. Whether GOD exists throughout what we perceive of the universe matters not to me -- from my empirical observations of the power of this GOD entity I can safely state in all confidence that GOD has full dominion over MY reality, ergo I believe GOD has full dominion over the reality of other minds (yours, Rick Lewis etc etc.. everyone that has conscious awareness basically).

So a basic definition of Pantheism for me is, GOD is pan reality and EXTREMELY intelligent, willing and personal beyond any comprehension laid out in any scripture. Indeed, we are biological robots when this entity wants a causal result from our being human. +++

If those beliefs work for you, that's absolutely fine.

Last time we spoke you stated that you thought I was trying to convert you - to Christianity I suppose. I am not. I tell everyone on the forum believe whatever you want, I honestly don't think that the GOD I know as the intelligence projecting our perceivable reality from below the Planck scale cares too much as to whether you believe in Christ or not.
Now that I am being a good Brian, not returning to the Tree of Know Ledge I am finally on good terms with this entity, it's lovely actually.

I love that you are into Paganism. I understand that from you perspective a church would seem stuffy where the 'church' of the Pagan is all of nature, well actually that's mine too as a Pantheist Christian. Everyday I walk my dog Donnie I marvel at the perfection of this creation, I also am the light.

What do you love about Paganism the most? I truly know very little of it and am genuinely interested in it and this Wiccan thing you mentioned?