The value in starting a family

[Nilsi]

59 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that "creation" is outside of the real, as if there were something other than real(and therefore emptiness, holes (symbolic representations) in the real) or something other than creation.

But that’s exactly the point of Deleuze’s concept of the Virtual - it’s not a "hole" in reality but the very creative potential that makes actualization possible. What you’re calling a hole is really an excess, a surplus of difference and intensity that hasn’t yet been actualized. The Virtual isn’t some lack - it’s the field of forces, tendencies, and potential becomings that structure what can emerge.

Of course, this can collapse into a vacuum, a lack, and then we’re back in Lacanian metaphysics, but I’m not willing to surrender the potential of the Virtual to some childish nihilism. Quite frankly, it just doesn’t hold up under the scrutiny of direct experience.

Go read Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense. I’m not going to make this argument better than Deleuze did.

Edited March 8 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

8 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

But that’s exactly the point of Deleuze’s concept of the Virtual - it’s not a "hole" in reality but the very creative potential that makes actualization possible. What you’re calling a hole is really an excess, a surplus of difference and intensity that hasn’t yet been actualized. The Virtual isn’t some lack - it’s the field of forces, tendencies, and potential becomings that structure what can emerge.

Of course, this can collapse into a vacuum, a lack, and then we’re back in Lacanian metaphysics, but I’m not willing to surrender the potential of the Virtual to some childish nihilism. Quite frankly, it just doesn’t hold up under the scrutiny of direct experience.

Go read Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense. I’m not going to make this argument better than Deleuze did.

Really, this comes down to belief. If you truly believe that real creativity is possible, it is; if you don’t, it isn’t. And since most people are so dulled by their petty, utilitarian lives, we might as well describe their behavior and psychology in Lacanian terms - they operate as subjects of lack, forever circling the void.

But clinging to this framework is a grave mistake if you actually want to live a life that affirms itself and its own potential. This is precisely why no Nietzschean can be a Lacanian and why Žižek, to this day, struggles to grasp the core of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche is about becoming an active, life-affirming subject, not a passive one shackled to an unfillable emptiness at the core of their being.

Just watch this. Isn’t it remarkable that one of the brightest, most well-read philosophers of our time struggles with Nietzsche, of all people? That alone should make you seriously question his entire project - which, of course, is a Lacanian one.

[eos_nyxia]

On 2025-03-07 at 8:51 AM, Chadders said:

@Sugarcoat That’s not the point I’m making. Population size is another issue all together

If only the people that were mature enough to start a family did so you can be sure the global population would radically decline

Yes, this would be ideal. That's kind of the point. It sucks in the shorter term for countries and economies, especially when your whole model is based on the attachment to the idea of infinite economic growth.

It's not a popular view, though I don't care much about people's opinions on the matter; it's not like opinions alone are going to make much of difference. Either we get this sustainability thing right and make the appropriate choices, or we'll be reminded that we are very much still animals that are subject to the natural world who have lived beyond our means and will be culled accordingly in time, all while dragging our children and children's children into it, along with the number of other species we are currently responsible for making extinct.

Let's see how people's current children and their children feel about us and our choices when they are adults, I guess, when we are the boomers' age. That's a real test.  I'm guessing they're not going to be very happy with what we've left them.

 

 

Edited March 8 by eos_nyxia

[Recursoinominado]

Retirement guaranteed! 

[eos_nyxia]

On 2025-03-07 at 8:13 AM, Chadders said:

What do people think about starting a family? I find many are just not in touch with the deeper purpose behind it

We’re actually talking about something that is an inherent part of the evolution of the human species. It’s not ‘traditional’ in that dismissive attitude some people have but it’s baked into the fabric of the human species. Family units were a core part of tribal societies it’s not just some conservative mid-century option. We are hardwired to procreate and care for our children unless very dysfunctional 

Also I would say that what makes a boy a man and a girl a woman is when they are ready to start a family - this is irrespective of whether they actually do or not, the point is they are mature enough to do it properly if they were to. It’s a good test of your own maturity. Do you truly believe you are mature and strong enough to be a grounded, loving and stable father figure or a compassionate, loving and nurturing mother? 

A big problem is that many people are not mature enough to be parents. This is so obvious with people who can’t fully take on board the responsibility in being a parent

I’ve seen posts where people will dismiss the family option and go their own way with travel or whatever. That’s fine but it’s this dismissal and the conception that it is a traditional option that bugs me. Starting a family is a beautiful thing. It’s not a lifestyle but a core part of us it’s just that maturity is the key to it

On a personal level, I've never felt like I had the right stuff to be a good mother, though I've done a lot of soul searching to think about what this would involve. As if "intelligence" and/or material resources are what make a good or decent parent. It is not. Neither is empathy or sensitivity alone.

I am good with younger people in the sense that I GET them (especially late childhood/ teenagers) and I even used to work with them, but that doesn't mean that I would be a good parent. Among the many possible issues is that I have very sensitive senses and am not the most adaptable close quarters and home spaces, and there is the sheer amount of energy and effort it would take to adapt to them in a way that doesn't leave me shellshocked or me STILL taking it out on them in some way. 

Like, I could probably be a good mom if I had a 24/7 nanny or a partner that did 80% of the childcare stuff, lol. AKA. If.... I could be a DAD instead of a mom.

Unless I could guarantee that I would get a child that was just like myself as a child (aka. like a quiet, super mature "little adult", but BTW that behaviour too often arises for emotionally unhealthy reasons), I will suffer a great deal and it will consume my whole life. But getting to pick and choose your child? That's not how any of this works, yet people often operate with this innate, unexamined assumption, that they can either somehow "pick" or mould their child into a product of their liking.

Also, I would like to keep my body intact, thanks! Being in a female body has been hard enough as it is already and I've had enough. I got used to people calling me "selfish" for this when I was younger, which is usually when I start asking them about their philanthropic efforts or vocational work with youth, or if they're planning to adopt. RADIO SILENCE. People who care about helping kids are.... usually out helping kids instead of getting into these stupid discussions with childless girls and women.

 

I would say, for whoever is interested in starting a family, a person who has this grand vision of what their kid is going to be like, what they should like and who they should be, is probably going to be shitty parent. That would be a flaming red flag for me.  Even people who don't actively hold their perspective still often hold this perspective. The question is, what does it take to get a person to that point?

 

 

Edited March 8 by eos_nyxia

[LastThursday]

@Chadders what could be more spiritual or divine than union, and then creation? Then again many things have a divine dimension to them seen in the right light. In some sense you could say that anything that is "natural" is also divine, irrespective of negative consequences such as overpopulation.

I'm not sure that maturity is necessarily the best argument for or against having a family. Is it that you need to be mature to start a family or is it that it matures you in the process? A stronger trait to have would be commitment. Can you be committed to your family unit and your kids for twenty years or more? Except I reckon most wouldn't look at themselves and say: boy I've lacked commitment in my life, I really shouldn't be starting a family. No, they just go right ahead and do it anyway, because it's a natural urge if not traditional. It's not really going out of fashion any time soon, even if the make up of having a family changes with tradition. Even people who at one time dismiss having a family, may succumb later in life. But I admit, commitment is probably some form of maturity. 

I think it's hard to be prescriptive about a process that lasts twenty years or more, if not the rest of your life - things change too much over that time to say anything much about it from the outset, even if it seems obvious two people would make lousy parents.

Personally, I've sat on the fence about it most of my life. I feel variously: happy that all my money and time are my own without compromise, I'm stress free moslty, but then, that I'm missing out on the love and connection and joy of having a family (and maybe even yes, maturity). All my friends have just got on with it, without much deeper thought to it I suspect. Most of my male friends weren't ready to be fathers, but I think that was just a hypothetical fear of confinement and probably the unknown - they're all decent committed fathers now without exception. I would probably be the same if the situation arose.

Edited March 9 by LastThursday

[Schizophonia]

On 08/03/2025 at 10:45 PM, Nilsi said:

But that’s exactly the point of Deleuze’s concept of the Virtual - it’s not a "hole" in reality but the very creative potential that makes actualization possible. What you’re calling a hole is really an excess, a surplus of difference and intensity that hasn’t yet been actualized. The Virtual isn’t some lack - it’s the field of forces, tendencies, and potential becomings that structure what can emerge.

Of course, this can collapse into a vacuum, a lack, and then we’re back in Lacanian metaphysics, but I’m not willing to surrender the potential of the Virtual to some childish nihilism. Quite frankly, it just doesn’t hold up under the scrutiny of direct experience.

Go read Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense. I’m not going to make this argument better than Deleuze did.

I lack the vocabulary to completely understand you, I should read Deleuze or the popularization of Deleuze; If you have books to recommend btw.

When I speak of a hole it is just the way of discriminating the real in Lacan.
The American flag is a hole because it symbolizes what is not there (the surface of the real that accompanies the hole, that is to say everything else and in particular what is close to the hole ie the American people, American "values", American food, etc; A bit like a Schwarzschild Black Hole, of language; If you see what I mean.

Then the phallus is what will remove/fill the hole, it is the “ultimate signifier”.

Being creative is just generating holes, of different kinds.

[Nilsi]

On 10.3.2025 at 7:15 PM, Schizophonia said:

I lack the vocabulary to completely understand you, I should read Deleuze or the popularization of Deleuze; If you have books to recommend btw.

When I speak of a hole it is just the way of discriminating the real in Lacan.
The American flag is a hole because it symbolizes what is not there (the surface of the real that accompanies the hole, that is to say everything else and in particular what is close to the hole ie the American people, American "values", American food, etc; A bit like a Schwarzschild Black Hole, of language; If you see what I mean.

Then the phallus is what will remove/fill the hole, it is the “ultimate signifier”.

Being creative is just generating holes, of different kinds.

Deleuze’s point is that this hole doesn’t reveal an absent center but rather a fluid becoming, which is precisely what Lacan is missing, or at the very least backgrounding to the point of real pathological implications for the subject which thinks in terms of Lacan.

The only reason the real can’t be signified in Lacan is because reality is fundamentally unstable (which Lacan gets, to give him some credit) - not because there’s some deep, structural void, but because it never stops shifting, never settles enough to be captured by any symbolic or ideological scheme. But here’s the thing: it’s precisely in this absence of the Lacanian "real" (which, yeah, the terminology is brain-melting because Lacan’s and Deleuze’s "real" are literally opposites) that the attempt to capture it produces novelty.

Lacan frames this as a failure - like a glitch in the system, the subject stuck in lack - but Deleuze sees it as the very condition of creation, the motor of difference itself. The real isn’t some impossible missing piece; it’s an overflowing excess, a constant churn of forces and intensities that keeps generating new configurations.

So where Lacan sees an inescapable gap, Deleuze sees a productive rupture, not lack but pure potential, always spilling over, always mutating.

Edited March 11 by Nilsi

[Schizophonia]

33 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Deleuze’s point is that this hole doesn’t reveal an absent center but rather a fluid becoming, which is precisely what Lacan is missing, or at the very least backgrounding to the point of real pathological implications for the subject which thinks in terms of Lacan.

The only reason the real can’t be signified in Lacan is because reality is fundamentally unstable (which Lacan gets, to give him some credit) - not because there’s some deep, structural void, but because it never stops shifting, never settles enough to be captured by any symbolic or ideological scheme. But here’s the thing: it’s precisely in this absence of the Lacanian "real" (which, yeah, the terminology is brain-melting because Lacan’s and Deleuze’s "real" are literally opposites) that the attempt to capture it produces novelty.

Lacan frames this as a failure - like a glitch in the system, the subject stuck in lack - but Deleuze sees it as the very condition of creation, the motor of difference itself. The real isn’t some impossible missing piece; it’s an overflowing excess, a constant churn of forces and intensities that keeps generating new configurations.

So where Lacan sees an inescapable gap, Deleuze sees a productive rupture, not lack but pure potential, always spilling over, always mutating.

This time, I haven't studied this, so I'm having a hard time understanding it; I'm tasting my own medicine.😅

I'm going to do some research because it piques my curiosity, and then I'll respond within the week.

 

Edited March 11 by Schizophonia

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Schizophonia said:

This time, I haven't studied this, so I'm having a hard time understanding it; I'm tasting my own medicine.😅

I'm going to do some research because it piques my curiosity, and then I'll respond within the week.

 

👍

[Chadders]

On 08/03/2025 at 4:56 PM, Schizophonia said:

If you make children for "divine purpose" this intention will be tacitly conveyed and they will end up neurotic.

You don’t understand what I mean by that

On 08/03/2025 at 4:56 PM, Schizophonia said:

I meant you are making a big deal out of it.
 

Yes it’s a big deal to start a family

[Chadders]

@eos_nyxia That’s true. Capitalism has rotted society from the inside out because most business marketing practises leach off the ignorant (easy to please) such as children. Social media is atrocious for this. Parents have a job to protect their kids from the utter garbage fed to their children on a daily basis from these addictive mobile games, junk food, social media, mass entertainment etc 

It’s a war on our attention and our children are the biggest victims

 

[Chadders]

On 08/03/2025 at 11:34 PM, eos_nyxia said:

I would say, for whoever is interested in starting a family, a person who has this grand vision of what their kid is going to be like, what they should like and who they should be, is probably going to be shitty parent. That would be a flaming red flag for me.  Even people who don't actively hold their perspective still often hold this perspective. The question is, what does it take to get a person to that point?

You have a lot of self reflection here which is a positive thing and is a sign of being a good parent but as you say you may not quite have all the qualities to be as good a parent as you feel you can be. Very mature response. I’ve only recently at 31 felt that I could be a decent parent - that revelation came through psychedelics full disclosure 

You are totally right with the quote above. Expecting your child to turn out a certain way is selfish. It’s projecting what you want on the child rather than allowing them to explore what they really want out of life

[Chadders]

On 09/03/2025 at 8:34 PM, LastThursday said:

@Chadders I'm not sure that maturity is necessarily the best argument for or against having a family. Is it that you need to be mature to start a family or is it that it matures you in the process? A stronger trait to have would be commitment. 

I would say both on maturity. Hopefully someone would naturally mature with age anyway but you need to be at a base line level of maturity. To be stable psychologically, emotionally and financially is very important. In terms of commitment that’s where you have to want it like with anything in life. You’re not going to be committed to something you never wanted 

As for staying committed to it your child is your own flesh and blood. You brought them into this world and as a parent you have got their back no matter what. That perspective does require maturity and letting go of your own ego and selfishness 

Just to add to the maturity thing it is ideal that you are with someone committed to the child as well. It’s very important to have a good father and mother figure. The child can learn from both masculine and feminine energies. If it’s a single parent then the child potentially misses experiencing another universal energy. Boys with single mums as parents have to make up for the lack of masculine energy and vice versa for girls with single dads as parents looking after them. Having both is ultimately the best but leaning to masculine or feminine whether you are a boy or a girl

Obvs we can talk all day about how identity is relative but for practically getting by in the world and not being dysfunctional kids need certainly and understanding around their sexual identity. Polarity is a healthy thing but that’s another debate!

 

Edited March 12 by Chadders

[Letho]

I don’t ‘start’ families. That’s what people do when they’re just following a script.

A family isn’t something you check off a list. It’s built. It’s earned. It’s a reflection of the man who leads it. My home will have a presence you can feel the second you step inside. Stability in the walls. Love in the air. A foundation so solid my woman never has to ask if she’s safe. She’ll know.

My kids won’t grow up guessing who they are. They won’t need to ‘find themselves’ in their 20s because they’ll already be standing on something unshakable. A name that carries weight. A father who leads by example.

Most men hope for the best and call that ‘parenting.’ That’s weak. I know exactly what I’m building and I won’t let the world raise my kids for me.

And the woman next to me? She doesn’t wonder if I’m serious. She doesn’t question my direction. She feels it. Because when a man moves like this, there’s no doubt. She either steps into something real or she stays where it’s comfortable. But I don’t do ‘comfortable.’ I do unshakable.

[RawJudah]

I know people aren’t gonna like this but… most people are born by accident. The parents didn’t plan it at all. And you can tell who the people are that are born by accident. 
If you do the family thing then you MUST plan it, especially in this day and age. 
And there are some guys out there that are made to be fathers. They have the father instinct in them built in to their DNA. 
Other men do not have this in them, and they probably shouldn’t be fathers. 
 

But what do I know? Life is so complicated that there isn’t a size fits all.