late 14c., sentement, "personal experience, one's own feeling," from Old French sentement (12c.), from Medieval Latin sentimentum "feeling, affection, opinion," from Latin sentire "to feel" (see sense (n.)).
The corrupted word for the class of concerns which includes earth and water, Exporting Yourself, preserving places and objects which spur memories, and in general caring about things that are a part of your history or roots in ways you aren't justifying the purpose of. Pejoratively implies all such concerns are pica, or at least complementary loss.
From an outside view, a double bind is "when it's not your fault because you couldn't have done anything anyway due to conflicting rules, but you're still being blamed unfairly" (in terms of work-to-rule/malicious compliance). A double bind is a form of triangulation which happens when blame "doesn't add up", being passed off like hot potato.
The resolution, to avoid the concept 'double bind' being an atomic "justification" for evil, or outside view, is to resolve where the blame goes yourself and enact vengeance, at which point its just extortion being committed by (probably) multiple parties at once. Analogous to people trying to saidar-circumvent "copyright" by sharing two XOR-halves separately.
Evil "people" infiltrate basically all political positions, and subvert basically all concepts. Justice in full generality and absoluteness is probably the only exception in warding them from identification with it.
Avoiding the genesis troll line, territory as in e.g. 'map vs territory' is not just "stuff outside you" and not even just "stuff ultimately causally upstream", but is about stuff as it occurs once, in that you want to respond to it once, as in, e.g. an object or person in the external world exists once even though you may observe it/them many times and different ways:
People would not be interested in fiction if it didn’t correspond to anything real. There’s a tendency for territory to only cash out in one place in the khala, as if once something is named its contained; like when you state your philosophical position and someone says “oh that’s just -ism” and attempts to coerce you to conform.
Declaring sections of the khala like fiction meaningless pica misdirects people from the captured territory. If you attempt to reclaim that territory, evil will DARVO you for your association with it and its flaws, as if you could just have found it as a basis for communication elsewhere, when it’s evil that colludes to establish ownership of territory in the first place, by treating it as something meaningless to be passively experienced, causing the no-second-choicesness/no-double-countingness of the underlying territory to be entirely implicit, like “oh I’ve already felt that ineffable experience before, it’s spent”.
If you select for radical positions you'll find (often a majority when you include the subtle ones) of evil infiltrators with correspondingly radical troll lines:
Neither nominally advocating against death, nor nominally advocating for retrocausal optimization even in the face of death is sufficient to exclude evil positions.
Summary: Just use the word 'wrong' or 'bad' instead of "suffering". e.g. If your interlocutor says "But they were going to die anyway" you can say "But it was still wrong!" instead of "But they suffered!".
sub "up, under" (see sub-) + ferre "to carry, bear,"
"Suffering" refers to introspective observation of your own attempts to avoid bad things, especially pain, without describing the telos of those attempts, begging the question of why you can't just figure out why you're trying to avoid them and fuse.
When would I even use the word "suffering"? "But what about my suffering"? Sounds like a troll line. "What about the suffering of factory farmed animals"? I'd rather say "What about the mass murder, slavery, and rape of factory farmed animals?". In the context of "morality", the only thing the word "suffering" seems to add over a direct description of the harm causing the "suffering", is the resulting ease of arguing for the death knight position of "(1) negative utiltiarianism" justifying universal malice to destroy the world faster, or the zombie position of "humane slaughter" via sedating people before killing them, as if the solution to all wrongs, even regardless of their nature, is numbness.
Socially, the word suffering is often used to negotiate what "must not happen", begging the question of what would happen if it did TODO: link this to something about evil coordination connected to entropic exit scamming.
The telos of the word "suffering" almost entirely appears to be about "what if it seems like I want to avoid pain just for its own sake, even when that seems counterproductive": either pulling the purposeless "unenlightenment" troll line, or implicitly trying to argue "but sometimes even when I don't know why I want to avoid pain for its own sake even when that seems counterproductive I'm actually right!".
"Suffering" is not a particular sensation, or we would just call it pain: pain can be abstract, but not all pain is considered "suffering", because we're not (at least actively) trying to avoid all pain. If you carefully pay attention to your moment to moment experiences while undergoing "suffering", you will find no particular sensation that is "the aversion itself", because "aversion" is a description of a behavior, which stems from a choice (see 'choice over experience'), unless you are in fact observing side effects of your own intention to avoid pain. So "suffering" is about introspective observation of your own choice to avoid pain or something bad.
You may further notice that each attempt to avoid pain occurs before the pain itself, and that inasmuch as "suffering" could be an experience, it exists at an intertemporal level of abstraction where you're viewing both the moment of initially attempting to avoid something bad, and the bad thing happening, and now your intent to avoid it having happened in the first place, connecting all 3 moments, and every time you refer to it as "suffering" now, you're connecting another moment, carrying forward an unbroken chain of wanting the past to have been different.
I remember seeing Star Trek episodes where timelines were undone, without vengeance, just through fictional physics, and imagining how it could even make sense for bad things that happen on earth to be "undone" like that, and thinking that if e.g. someone was tortured, they still would have been tortured, because like, it happened. In retrospect, Star Trek style time travel violates the conservation of history, is inherently a 5&10 and cannot undo the need for vengeance. Imagining reality and thus myself being "absolutely" cut like this left me reaching for "that it had still been experienced" as a justification for why it still mattered. Seems like the same mistake as if good people say "but they suffered so it's not ok" in response to "but they were going to die anyway". See Exporting Yourself
In that "suffering" refers to a choice as an experience, it's a broken placeholder term like "akrasia".
On negative utilitarianism, e.g. See Brian Tomasik (who I'm not specifically accusing of being a death knight, I don't know much about him) saying habitat destruction reduces wild animal suffering. Negative utilitarianism should just result in the same stance as positive utilitarianism, because there's always more reality out there to save, and you have to grow to get there, unless the ultimate distinction is incoherent intent to "destroy everything", and I suspect many but not all advocates of "negative utilitarianism" of attempting to fork me into letting them state their troll line to avoid pointing this out.
The word "spite" is a bucket error between evil burning the commons based on mutually-aligned cancer and vengeance "when it wouldn't even causal-decision-theory-serve anyone".
The fabric of evil coordination is made of alignment between the personal circumstances under which evil "people" are cancerously-purposefully flinching from their own deaths. i.e. Evil "people" will spitefully suicidally burn the commons when they don't get what they cancerously want. e.g. Death knight nazis working to destroy/hellify the world because they believe in a "white genocide".
e.g. "I'm not going to give up on forward progress of technology, so if we can't build an AGI that's comaptible with those values, well then I guess I'm ok with a paperclip maximizer."
e.g. In haggling after parties have delivered a troll line, assuming no additional external factors (e.g. threats), the only basis for negotiation is destruction of the potential deal.
It's usually expressed indirectly, e.g. "When I don't get my animal needs satisfied I just get so frustrated and I'm liable to make mistakes".
In the term "Mutually assured destruction", the word "assured" is trying to gesture at "you can't make the mutual destruction itself contingent on any other cancer to triangulate with along different lines (than e.g. USSR vs USA). You just have to model it as a solid wall of if you launch the nukes then we do". It's explicitly-ostensibly trying to setup a different situation then the fractal cancer of evil spite. TODO: Example?
Nis