There's an island or whatever with 100 people as I have ten fingers. They're all good people. No one gets a kick out of hurting others. Each cares about each others pain. Nobody wants to be thought of as the most important person. Each person values the contribution made by each other.
One day a person gets killed by a freak accident while alone. Unfortunately the circumstances really really make it appear it was murder. Now, evil has been introduced (yes, this story has been done a few times before). Each person must view each other with the understanding that this might be the murderer. So they aren't as open with each other. They view each other with some suspicion and are apt to possibly think quite negative of one another.
In response to this less positive attitude people just naturally aren't as positive in return. And things go downhill.
A small bit of distrust results in feeling offended and returning that distrust twice as much. Just the possibility that one isn't liked makes people cold to one another.
Everyone is still trying to be good. But people have learned to suspect very negative things of each other. And misinterpret actions very, very negatively.
They begin responding with hate to what they perceive are just nonsensically harmful actions. Actions which couldn't possibly be performed just out of stupidity/ignorance (of the harmful consequences), that instead must be evil and thus deserve hate.
All it really took was just recognizing the possibility of evil. And communication that wasn't perfect.
And so I rail against indifference. I've been thinking it's the real problem. But even without it, maybe we're still lost.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Devo
In the beginning there were lots of little tribes scattered asunder across the world. Some prospered and grew. They eventually ran into one another. Sometimes, maybe at one time even most of the time, these meetings were peaceful. But there were some aggressive tribes who simply killed whom they met, later instead reducing some to slavery, much later still putting a rightwing president in charge of an unregulated third world economy.
The peaceful tribes were destroyed one by one. Slowly the agressive ones survived and reproduced and grew unto empires; blood thirsty abominations such as the Romans who spread across the globe.
Now the logical end has been reached, with each nation just varying degrees of the same idea, with entire nations being basically sophisticated slavery. (No longer any need to even take care of one's slave property.)
And within these groups, the benefit of being agressive to one another (although the idea of morality/community isn't completely gone) is quite real.
The backstabbers get ahead. The power hungry get ahead. The Good do quite often get stomped upon. And those that dare to question society instead of simply obeying the traditions that have us here today are viewed with hostility and worse.
And so we really have been and continue to evolve in a negative direction.
The mormon polygamists: How does a movement like that manage to grow? What kind of woman thinks that sounds like a good idea? Only someone who grew up in it. And they have a ton of children, thus their movement grows.
There was a music group named Devo. The name stood for devolution. (Which is an incorrect usage of the word suggesting not understanding how evolution actually works but I'm certain they did understand how evolution actually works.) The band members were students at Kent State when the protestors were shot. In fact one was a few feet away as a student was gunned down and they were put under martial law.
Their idea was that we are evolving in a negative direction. That being dumb, wanting to have lots of sex, and being aggressive was how one increased their chances of reproducing nowadays. They had to be sort of careful not to put that out there too clearly. And so no one even really understood. But they sang songs about getting laid, etc... exactly like all other bands were doing. And people loved it.
The founder recently said of devolution that "It's all over. It's happened. We're fishes in the sea."
People who openly talk of such things are viewed with quite a bit of hostility. It suggests elitism and eugenics and so on. It is more complicated of course. People aren't That bad. And there's no solution anyway. It just is. If anything it's wonderful the degree to which people are nice and peaceful to each other despite it.
Maybe because those are good qualities to have in slaves.
But intelligence is not really such a great quality in a slave. That would mean questioning society. So, nice, but... "unmotivated" to think....
The peaceful tribes were destroyed one by one. Slowly the agressive ones survived and reproduced and grew unto empires; blood thirsty abominations such as the Romans who spread across the globe.
Now the logical end has been reached, with each nation just varying degrees of the same idea, with entire nations being basically sophisticated slavery. (No longer any need to even take care of one's slave property.)
And within these groups, the benefit of being agressive to one another (although the idea of morality/community isn't completely gone) is quite real.
The backstabbers get ahead. The power hungry get ahead. The Good do quite often get stomped upon. And those that dare to question society instead of simply obeying the traditions that have us here today are viewed with hostility and worse.
And so we really have been and continue to evolve in a negative direction.
The mormon polygamists: How does a movement like that manage to grow? What kind of woman thinks that sounds like a good idea? Only someone who grew up in it. And they have a ton of children, thus their movement grows.
There was a music group named Devo. The name stood for devolution. (Which is an incorrect usage of the word suggesting not understanding how evolution actually works but I'm certain they did understand how evolution actually works.) The band members were students at Kent State when the protestors were shot. In fact one was a few feet away as a student was gunned down and they were put under martial law.
Their idea was that we are evolving in a negative direction. That being dumb, wanting to have lots of sex, and being aggressive was how one increased their chances of reproducing nowadays. They had to be sort of careful not to put that out there too clearly. And so no one even really understood. But they sang songs about getting laid, etc... exactly like all other bands were doing. And people loved it.
The founder recently said of devolution that "It's all over. It's happened. We're fishes in the sea."
People who openly talk of such things are viewed with quite a bit of hostility. It suggests elitism and eugenics and so on. It is more complicated of course. People aren't That bad. And there's no solution anyway. It just is. If anything it's wonderful the degree to which people are nice and peaceful to each other despite it.
Maybe because those are good qualities to have in slaves.
But intelligence is not really such a great quality in a slave. That would mean questioning society. So, nice, but... "unmotivated" to think....
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Crying and Religion
Milan Kundera (eventually I want to note about 50 things he pointed out) pointed out a character trait of dividing oneself in to two pieces where there is the person and then a part of the person off to the side just observing. I do that to extreme.
To the point that once long ago I was crying about some truly horrific thing and instead I started really analyzing what was going on within me, what made it possible to cry, etc. I realized that I was doing something akin to praying/begging before the altar/statue of some god. I was realizing the existence of some godlike entity and asking it for help, showing it how pitiful my life was, asking it to take my pain. It was a very strong feeling. I suspect it's the same for others but, as with so many things, people don't carry this objective/observing of themselves to such extremes.
They say what makes us human is the ability to recognize ourselves, to recognize our existence, and for that matter (partially related) to look in mirrors and realize it's us. (Disproven with elephants and in general I don't assign any particular special trait to humans.) Thing is, though, anyway, we aren't actually that good at recognizing what the heck we're thinking, IMO. I'm often amazed to what degree people can't explain why they feel the way they do about a given thing. For example, "I'm just feeling depressed and I don't know why."
Anyway, I realized what it was necessary to be thinking about in order to be able to cry. The result was I went ten years without crying (only partially true as that probably wasn't the only reason of course). Whenever I thought about possibly doing so, I was stuck with understanding the reality of what would be occuring in my head, that I was so clearly believing in a "god".
And I do want to believe in a god. But my logic crushes my faith. (Except when it absolutely can't. I'm still bothering to live for example.) And so when close to crying, I'd instead think about the absurdity of god, the absurdity of the process it takes to cry and instead usually just laugh. It's funny the endless people calling themselves atheist who logically believe and don't believe all the same things as me who yet can cry up a storm utterly unaware of what the essential element it is that it takes to manage pulling that off at all.
What a ridiculous predicament we are in with the most intelligent occasionally crying up a storm to some unseen all powerful being who will then turn around and say, "Flying sky fairies? How ridiculous!"
---
Also it seems generally, that focusing on the absurdity behind emotions can make it hard to still feel emotions. But eventually one can overcome this. I have reached the point where I can understand the absurdity and still go with it at least with crying. Well not so often.
Also of religion I think there is a huge difference between what people logically believe and how they live and the important thing is how one lives. If you're bothering to live at all, then you must not think it's in vain. If you really believe that you shall cease to exist and all memory of your existence shall simply disappear than you are living in vain. To logically face this would mean not bothering. Instead people say that's what they logically believe, yet, they keep getting out of bed most days. Thus they aren't living as atheists. There is no such thing actually.
And boy what an annoying thing pointing this out to atheists considering how I used to make fun of religionists. Very annoying to get the same ridicule in return now. The assumption of stupidity and the hate, etc. But yes, organized religion has been a horror in this world. No doubt of that.
But morality (acting in a fashion that doesn't clearly benefit the acter) is largely based on focusing on the very long term. Quite often well beyond any amount of time the person could still be alive to even potentially benefit from the action. This certainly doesn't mean theists are more moral as, again, what atheists logically believe and what they act like they believe often have nothing in common (same as with everyone else). And so a given atheist can go his whole life logically being atheist yet committing all these "altruistic" (to get technical beyond what I've done so far, real altruism doesn't actually exist, which isn't to take some ghastly Ayn Rand line) acts that can't possibly benefit himself in this life and never really understanding why he's doing so.
To the point that once long ago I was crying about some truly horrific thing and instead I started really analyzing what was going on within me, what made it possible to cry, etc. I realized that I was doing something akin to praying/begging before the altar/statue of some god. I was realizing the existence of some godlike entity and asking it for help, showing it how pitiful my life was, asking it to take my pain. It was a very strong feeling. I suspect it's the same for others but, as with so many things, people don't carry this objective/observing of themselves to such extremes.
They say what makes us human is the ability to recognize ourselves, to recognize our existence, and for that matter (partially related) to look in mirrors and realize it's us. (Disproven with elephants and in general I don't assign any particular special trait to humans.) Thing is, though, anyway, we aren't actually that good at recognizing what the heck we're thinking, IMO. I'm often amazed to what degree people can't explain why they feel the way they do about a given thing. For example, "I'm just feeling depressed and I don't know why."
Anyway, I realized what it was necessary to be thinking about in order to be able to cry. The result was I went ten years without crying (only partially true as that probably wasn't the only reason of course). Whenever I thought about possibly doing so, I was stuck with understanding the reality of what would be occuring in my head, that I was so clearly believing in a "god".
And I do want to believe in a god. But my logic crushes my faith. (Except when it absolutely can't. I'm still bothering to live for example.) And so when close to crying, I'd instead think about the absurdity of god, the absurdity of the process it takes to cry and instead usually just laugh. It's funny the endless people calling themselves atheist who logically believe and don't believe all the same things as me who yet can cry up a storm utterly unaware of what the essential element it is that it takes to manage pulling that off at all.
What a ridiculous predicament we are in with the most intelligent occasionally crying up a storm to some unseen all powerful being who will then turn around and say, "Flying sky fairies? How ridiculous!"
---
Also it seems generally, that focusing on the absurdity behind emotions can make it hard to still feel emotions. But eventually one can overcome this. I have reached the point where I can understand the absurdity and still go with it at least with crying. Well not so often.
Also of religion I think there is a huge difference between what people logically believe and how they live and the important thing is how one lives. If you're bothering to live at all, then you must not think it's in vain. If you really believe that you shall cease to exist and all memory of your existence shall simply disappear than you are living in vain. To logically face this would mean not bothering. Instead people say that's what they logically believe, yet, they keep getting out of bed most days. Thus they aren't living as atheists. There is no such thing actually.
And boy what an annoying thing pointing this out to atheists considering how I used to make fun of religionists. Very annoying to get the same ridicule in return now. The assumption of stupidity and the hate, etc. But yes, organized religion has been a horror in this world. No doubt of that.
But morality (acting in a fashion that doesn't clearly benefit the acter) is largely based on focusing on the very long term. Quite often well beyond any amount of time the person could still be alive to even potentially benefit from the action. This certainly doesn't mean theists are more moral as, again, what atheists logically believe and what they act like they believe often have nothing in common (same as with everyone else). And so a given atheist can go his whole life logically being atheist yet committing all these "altruistic" (to get technical beyond what I've done so far, real altruism doesn't actually exist, which isn't to take some ghastly Ayn Rand line) acts that can't possibly benefit himself in this life and never really understanding why he's doing so.
Monday, May 26, 2008
The definition of humor and happiness
Humor
Defined because it's good to understand ourselves.
What causes a person to laugh, what is humor?
The mind is constantly looking out for things that might go wrong. Constantly, constantly checking and rechecking. It's stressful.
And if something goes wrong which the mind recognized as potentially going wrong, well then, of course. The mind took this possibility into consideration. The mind understands that that sort of thing happens.
But here and there are things which the mind just was not thinking about. Bizarre things out of left field that catch it off guard. When such things go wrong the mind momentarily says, "But it never even occurred to me to think about That! This is just too much!" And the mind momentarily "gives up". And lets everything slide off. All stress momentarily slides off. And there is a moment of euphoria.
And we laugh. We give up and we laugh.
------
Happiness
The most essential thing to define. The impetus for all action, all everything. We must define Why we bother trying to do anything. Thus we must define happiness.
Quite simply it is the perception that we are moving away from death. And "death" can also mean nonexistance.
There are endless ways in which we can feel as if we are moving away from death. Tons of them are incorrect. Still, being incorrect that you are moving away from death won't make you any less happy in the short term.
Exposing yourself to lots of stimuli can simply give the feeling of being around lots of "existence". It makes you feel more alive.
Stuffing yourself of food can be such a stimuli. Escaping from reality can make it seem as if threats to your life are moving away, making friends can increase your "power" or that which helps you avoid death, getting someone to smile can be the same, the same with making money and/or hoarding money, feeling powerful one way or another, etc.
Even things like suicide can be seen as attemptedly logical acts to increase happiness. I won't bother explaining that one now though. Anyway, basically every act is performed as an attempt to increase 'happiness'.
But there is a long term and short term balance. How long will you exist? Will it really be forever? In some way you think it will, in some way you think it won't. To varying degrees depending on the scope of your mind. Etc.
Defined because it's good to understand ourselves.
What causes a person to laugh, what is humor?
The mind is constantly looking out for things that might go wrong. Constantly, constantly checking and rechecking. It's stressful.
And if something goes wrong which the mind recognized as potentially going wrong, well then, of course. The mind took this possibility into consideration. The mind understands that that sort of thing happens.
But here and there are things which the mind just was not thinking about. Bizarre things out of left field that catch it off guard. When such things go wrong the mind momentarily says, "But it never even occurred to me to think about That! This is just too much!" And the mind momentarily "gives up". And lets everything slide off. All stress momentarily slides off. And there is a moment of euphoria.
And we laugh. We give up and we laugh.
------
Happiness
The most essential thing to define. The impetus for all action, all everything. We must define Why we bother trying to do anything. Thus we must define happiness.
Quite simply it is the perception that we are moving away from death. And "death" can also mean nonexistance.
There are endless ways in which we can feel as if we are moving away from death. Tons of them are incorrect. Still, being incorrect that you are moving away from death won't make you any less happy in the short term.
Exposing yourself to lots of stimuli can simply give the feeling of being around lots of "existence". It makes you feel more alive.
Stuffing yourself of food can be such a stimuli. Escaping from reality can make it seem as if threats to your life are moving away, making friends can increase your "power" or that which helps you avoid death, getting someone to smile can be the same, the same with making money and/or hoarding money, feeling powerful one way or another, etc.
Even things like suicide can be seen as attemptedly logical acts to increase happiness. I won't bother explaining that one now though. Anyway, basically every act is performed as an attempt to increase 'happiness'.
But there is a long term and short term balance. How long will you exist? Will it really be forever? In some way you think it will, in some way you think it won't. To varying degrees depending on the scope of your mind. Etc.
Hell story
So a visitor goes to the old christian version of hell. He walks about seeing all the people in their various predicaments. The funny thing he finds is that none of them realize they're in hell. This is all any of them can ever remember. This is all they've ever known. This is just life. And they might as well make the best of it. So they try to not think about many things. They pretend there's some reason to greet one another with a smile and so on. And they hurt one another as that is at least something to do.
And this visitor makes the mistake of trying to tell these people where they're at, tries to show them how horrible things are. Is it so surprising that he's disliked? Maybe it seems surprising, but think hard. Do you know of any other place where it wouldn't be the least bit surprising that he wouldn't be liked?
It is felt that there is something wrong with him.
At best he is surely inconsiderate to be pointing out these things which nothing can be done about. At best he's a real wet blanket that no one would want to be around.
But the visitor thinks that the first step to improving their situation is for them to jointly recognize that things aren't going so well and thus they need to work together to change things.
He finishes this short story with an impassioned speech along such lines.
To the reader what he says should be obviously true. But what he says makes perfect sense in reality also. And the unfortunate response he gets in hell should be exactly the same response that he'll get in reality.
And this visitor makes the mistake of trying to tell these people where they're at, tries to show them how horrible things are. Is it so surprising that he's disliked? Maybe it seems surprising, but think hard. Do you know of any other place where it wouldn't be the least bit surprising that he wouldn't be liked?
It is felt that there is something wrong with him.
At best he is surely inconsiderate to be pointing out these things which nothing can be done about. At best he's a real wet blanket that no one would want to be around.
But the visitor thinks that the first step to improving their situation is for them to jointly recognize that things aren't going so well and thus they need to work together to change things.
He finishes this short story with an impassioned speech along such lines.
To the reader what he says should be obviously true. But what he says makes perfect sense in reality also. And the unfortunate response he gets in hell should be exactly the same response that he'll get in reality.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Hate
To summarize: with thinking of evil as instead a sort of "profound stupidity" there is little to no reason in today's world to believe in hate. Hate is only of use if you think you need to physically apply force at a moments notice. Hate was probably more needed in the far past when physical violence was more of a way of life. Back then there may have been more reason to think of certain harmful acts as being based on "evil" instead of considering them a sort of profound stupidity.
To feel hate towards someone means believing in evil. Is there ever a good, logical reason to believe in evil? Does instead calling 'evil', 'profound stupidity' really change anything at all? If we instead call it profound stupidity, does the hate go away?
The way we treat one another can be loosely divided into two ways:
1. The leftwing way, where we try to reason with people.
2. The rightwing way, where we try to use force.
Does the rightwing way get good results ever?
If we believe that some people are truly incapable of being reasoned with, then the only way to get them to stop or start doing something, is to resort to force and/or threats of force.
Capitalism, BTW, is based on this concept. The idea that people won't diligently work unless they have the threat of unemployment/no money hanging over them.
Ideally we could always reason with people. But I must sadly admit it seems quite often that doing so doesn't get anywhere. The "rightwing" way often seems to be needed. Often force seems to be needed.
And so hate seems to be tied into force, is hate also needed then? Could it actually serve some useful purpose? Did we evolve it for a useful reason?
If a person is profoundly stupid (evil) or for that matter just stupid (I use the word 'stupid' very deliberately instead of ignorant as I'm talking of the situation where it definitely isn't just ignorance,) then perhaps it is unfortunately useless to reason with them. In which case there seems to be nothing for it but to turn to force. As this need for force is the same whether they are stupid or "evil" (profoundly stupid), hate does not naturally go along with force as there is no need for hate if an action can be labeled as just stupid.
In this way hate does not go along with force.
But force, which is also violence, is often better applied if you get angry, if you feel hate. The hormones get running, the blood vessels constrict, you can much better jump up and apply force.
So, although logically there is no need to feel hate in the face of harmful acts, as they can all be thought of as just different types of stupidity instead of being evil, any kind of stupidity unfortunately means that force is going to be needed. Profound stupidity (evil) may mean much more force is going to be needed as the person just flat out doesn't care that they're causing harm and is more likely to cause a lot of harm if you try to intervene.
And in order to apply that force in the past, it was very useful to get angry in order to be better able to apply that physical force. It was very useful to believe in evil in order to feel hate and thus get angry.
We have evolved to think of many harmful actions as evil instead of stupid. Thinking of them as evil caused us to feel hate. Feeling hate made us angry. Getting angry made us better able to physically apply the force that was necessary to combat the "evil", (really just stupid,) action.
It does seem that unfortunately hate serves a purpose. Or at least it really used to serve a purpose.
If I manage to remove all belief in evil from me by instead thinking of "evil" as profound stupidity, then I find I no longer feel hate. But in losing my hate towards such harmful people, I'm making myself less able to apply the force that at least in the far past was a very real part of life.
In today's world, the need for human beings to use their physical bodies to apply force upon others is mostly gone. As such, hate serves very little useful purpose. It mostly just stresses out the body and shortens the lifespan.
In today's world hate serves very, very little useful purpose. If we don't believe in evil and instead call it profound stupidity then there is no feeling of hate at all. Unfortunately we seem programmed to believe in evil. The mind must conquer the "instincts" in order to get rid of hate.
We do unfortunately still have to resort to force sometimes. But it is always the last resort. When we have to resort to force we have, to an extent, failed.
To feel hate towards someone means believing in evil. Is there ever a good, logical reason to believe in evil? Does instead calling 'evil', 'profound stupidity' really change anything at all? If we instead call it profound stupidity, does the hate go away?
The way we treat one another can be loosely divided into two ways:
1. The leftwing way, where we try to reason with people.
2. The rightwing way, where we try to use force.
Does the rightwing way get good results ever?
If we believe that some people are truly incapable of being reasoned with, then the only way to get them to stop or start doing something, is to resort to force and/or threats of force.
Capitalism, BTW, is based on this concept. The idea that people won't diligently work unless they have the threat of unemployment/no money hanging over them.
Ideally we could always reason with people. But I must sadly admit it seems quite often that doing so doesn't get anywhere. The "rightwing" way often seems to be needed. Often force seems to be needed.
And so hate seems to be tied into force, is hate also needed then? Could it actually serve some useful purpose? Did we evolve it for a useful reason?
If a person is profoundly stupid (evil) or for that matter just stupid (I use the word 'stupid' very deliberately instead of ignorant as I'm talking of the situation where it definitely isn't just ignorance,) then perhaps it is unfortunately useless to reason with them. In which case there seems to be nothing for it but to turn to force. As this need for force is the same whether they are stupid or "evil" (profoundly stupid), hate does not naturally go along with force as there is no need for hate if an action can be labeled as just stupid.
In this way hate does not go along with force.
But force, which is also violence, is often better applied if you get angry, if you feel hate. The hormones get running, the blood vessels constrict, you can much better jump up and apply force.
So, although logically there is no need to feel hate in the face of harmful acts, as they can all be thought of as just different types of stupidity instead of being evil, any kind of stupidity unfortunately means that force is going to be needed. Profound stupidity (evil) may mean much more force is going to be needed as the person just flat out doesn't care that they're causing harm and is more likely to cause a lot of harm if you try to intervene.
And in order to apply that force in the past, it was very useful to get angry in order to be better able to apply that physical force. It was very useful to believe in evil in order to feel hate and thus get angry.
We have evolved to think of many harmful actions as evil instead of stupid. Thinking of them as evil caused us to feel hate. Feeling hate made us angry. Getting angry made us better able to physically apply the force that was necessary to combat the "evil", (really just stupid,) action.
It does seem that unfortunately hate serves a purpose. Or at least it really used to serve a purpose.
If I manage to remove all belief in evil from me by instead thinking of "evil" as profound stupidity, then I find I no longer feel hate. But in losing my hate towards such harmful people, I'm making myself less able to apply the force that at least in the far past was a very real part of life.
In today's world, the need for human beings to use their physical bodies to apply force upon others is mostly gone. As such, hate serves very little useful purpose. It mostly just stresses out the body and shortens the lifespan.
In today's world hate serves very, very little useful purpose. If we don't believe in evil and instead call it profound stupidity then there is no feeling of hate at all. Unfortunately we seem programmed to believe in evil. The mind must conquer the "instincts" in order to get rid of hate.
We do unfortunately still have to resort to force sometimes. But it is always the last resort. When we have to resort to force we have, to an extent, failed.
evil versus stupidity
When you perceive that the actions of some person are causing harm and they are clearly shown this is the case and yet they keep on doing it, there are two ways to view this person/this action: either they're stupid or they just really don't care that they're causing harm (IOW "evil").
It is of course true that thinking people are just ignorant is always preferable but I'm referring to the case where that's unfortunately been ruled out.
So what is the most positive way of viewing such harmful acts? Is the person stupid or "evil"? Which way would they be more likely to change? Viewing such acts in which way is a better way of going through life?
If you think them "evil", then you can be filled with anger at them. And going through life like that is just no good. Anger is much like stress and it will slowly eat at you. It will literally destroy your body among other things.
If you think them stupid, and if you end up viewing a lot of what goes in this world that way, then people will label you an arrogant elitist; someone who thinks they're better than others.
It wouldn't necessarily be true at all but people who find themselves in this position a lot may so much not want to be seen that way, that they may often simply refuse to see stupidity for what it is.
This refusal to recognize it, leaves only evil. They are left to seeth with anger whenever the results of a harmful act are on their mind.
They'd be far better off recognizing stupidity for what it is. Even though (unless very very carefully hidden) it will mean people will dislike them; they will think them an "arrogant elitist", someone who thinks he's better than everyone else.
Still, they're far better off being able to sleep at night. And recognizing obvious stupidity does not mean being arrogant at all.
The choice for some of us, who for whatever reason just think way too damm much, is very often to hate, or to just dismiss people as stupid.
I think the correct choice is to always see such acts as stupid. For two reasons:
1. Ultimately what we call "evil" is really just a profound stupidity anyway, where the person isn't smart enough to see why causing harm to others is something to avoid. In fact I'd just replace the word "evil" with "profound stupidity".
2. More importantly, as far as being disliked for thinking you're smarter than others, the very fact that you're more motivated to think, more motivated to question the status quo, and as a result just end up different than others, means people are going to dislike you. Going out of your way to convince yourself all this stupidity around you doesn't really exist, that it's just "evil", is to try to pretend that you're a lot more like everyone else than you actually are. It's just a lie.
It is of course true that thinking people are just ignorant is always preferable but I'm referring to the case where that's unfortunately been ruled out.
So what is the most positive way of viewing such harmful acts? Is the person stupid or "evil"? Which way would they be more likely to change? Viewing such acts in which way is a better way of going through life?
If you think them "evil", then you can be filled with anger at them. And going through life like that is just no good. Anger is much like stress and it will slowly eat at you. It will literally destroy your body among other things.
If you think them stupid, and if you end up viewing a lot of what goes in this world that way, then people will label you an arrogant elitist; someone who thinks they're better than others.
It wouldn't necessarily be true at all but people who find themselves in this position a lot may so much not want to be seen that way, that they may often simply refuse to see stupidity for what it is.
This refusal to recognize it, leaves only evil. They are left to seeth with anger whenever the results of a harmful act are on their mind.
They'd be far better off recognizing stupidity for what it is. Even though (unless very very carefully hidden) it will mean people will dislike them; they will think them an "arrogant elitist", someone who thinks he's better than everyone else.
Still, they're far better off being able to sleep at night. And recognizing obvious stupidity does not mean being arrogant at all.
The choice for some of us, who for whatever reason just think way too damm much, is very often to hate, or to just dismiss people as stupid.
I think the correct choice is to always see such acts as stupid. For two reasons:
1. Ultimately what we call "evil" is really just a profound stupidity anyway, where the person isn't smart enough to see why causing harm to others is something to avoid. In fact I'd just replace the word "evil" with "profound stupidity".
2. More importantly, as far as being disliked for thinking you're smarter than others, the very fact that you're more motivated to think, more motivated to question the status quo, and as a result just end up different than others, means people are going to dislike you. Going out of your way to convince yourself all this stupidity around you doesn't really exist, that it's just "evil", is to try to pretend that you're a lot more like everyone else than you actually are. It's just a lie.
tribal versus postindustrial living
With the exception of work, in this industrialized world we can be pretty picky about who we associate with. We can meet endless people and decide to have nothing to do with the vast majority of them. If we disagree with anything someone does, we can simply avoid them in the future.
We don't have to deal with people. We don't have to work through differences. We certainly don't have to honestly voice our differences. In fact, in this world of such violence it seems it's usually better to not do that.
In this postindustrial world it is nothing at all to just continously drop people with no explanation. There's so many people it is the truly well adapted way to act; just find identical people and to heck with all the rest.
In past history people generally would spend their lives in a small village or tribe surrounded by the same 100 or so people. They had to deal with each other. They often had to learn to get along; to work through their differences.
Now there's no need to get along. If you even think that the intentions behind some action someone did might be something you disagree with, simply have nothing further to do with them with no explanation.
If they don't quickly take the same attitude in return, they're a stalker.
As to work, be as fake and bland as possible.
It's an ugly way of looking at things and it seems to pretty well describe this world.
We don't have to deal with people. We don't have to work through differences. We certainly don't have to honestly voice our differences. In fact, in this world of such violence it seems it's usually better to not do that.
In this postindustrial world it is nothing at all to just continously drop people with no explanation. There's so many people it is the truly well adapted way to act; just find identical people and to heck with all the rest.
In past history people generally would spend their lives in a small village or tribe surrounded by the same 100 or so people. They had to deal with each other. They often had to learn to get along; to work through their differences.
Now there's no need to get along. If you even think that the intentions behind some action someone did might be something you disagree with, simply have nothing further to do with them with no explanation.
If they don't quickly take the same attitude in return, they're a stalker.
As to work, be as fake and bland as possible.
It's an ugly way of looking at things and it seems to pretty well describe this world.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Honesty
I think people generally are honest when it's positive but when it comes to all the negatives they hide what they really think. I'm way more honest than usual because I try (when I can, certainly not always) to be totally honest. In truth if everyone was being totally honest I'd appear an angel probably compared to most people. But since I'm pretty much the only person being so honest I'm thought of as rude, blunt, a "troublemaker", etc.
This is why I'm so honest:
Generally speaking the more you know, in the long term, the happier you should be. I've taken this too far, hence the title of this blog. I truthseek to a fault. I don't spend enough time just being silly, having a short term good time. The gears of long term truth seeking are always running in my head. And to share the positive and hide the negative is just so... unscientific. It's like doing a bunch of experiments and then tossing out the half of the results that didn't give you the answer you'd hoped for.
Such science would be pointless. And so with half the truth (whatever is negative) mostly hidden. The whole idea of truth seeking is chucked out the window. As a truth seeker (of course practicing the golden rule) you would either have to always be honest (with people you think you can afford to be so unassimilated to the social norms with) or you've got nothing.
The other side is not thinking so long term. Not truth seeking. Instead living for the short term. Just having a good time. Might as well hide the negative. This "anti-honesty" point of view is immensely nihilistic. It believes that people won't learn anything from the truth, that they won't come to any better understanding and instead will just fight. It believes that there are no truths worth understanding.
A short story could go like this:
Two men are the last living people on earth. They are scientists searching desperately for a way to clone, reproduce, somehow save the human race. They've been working a long time. They have one possibly final desperate experiment. The one scientist is especially getting old and sick. He thinks certainly this one should work. And if it doesn't it's over. That's it for the human race.
He falls ill and can't get to the lab to see the results. The other must tell him the results which were a failure. The other recognizes that finally it's no good to tell him the truth. He'll learn nothing that he can use in the future. It's time, finally, to live for the short term. To hide the negative. Finally the truth will hurt too much. And this person can do nothing good with it.
As a twist though, it could turn out that the dying scientist remembers some crucial thing that was done wrong. But with being lied to and told the experiment was a success doesn't bother to mention it as he dies and the race of man ends.
Anyway the result of my honesty is that I'm not as well liked as I'd otherwise be. It's highly ironic in a way because actually to be so damm honest I have to pretty much think like an angel. If one were to go inside the heads of people I associate with and compare it to my own, I wonder what the people who think so little of me would think then?
Maybe they know full well and still just don't care. As long as the ugliness which is in others is so much more hidden, so what? As long as there's a big smile and some silly thing to laugh about, what does it matter? There was never any intention to get very close anyway, so what does it matter?
It isn't just a matter of varying degrees of long term/short term thinking. It gets far more complicated.
It is also being optimistic enough to think a person can handle the truth.
It is also a matter of being incapable of just having a short term good time (being instead "zombiefied").
It is also a matter of not feeling vulnerable so that you're actually in a position to be so honest.
It is also the need to have more "meaningful" connections with people, to be closer emotionally with more people.
.....
This is why I'm so honest:
Generally speaking the more you know, in the long term, the happier you should be. I've taken this too far, hence the title of this blog. I truthseek to a fault. I don't spend enough time just being silly, having a short term good time. The gears of long term truth seeking are always running in my head. And to share the positive and hide the negative is just so... unscientific. It's like doing a bunch of experiments and then tossing out the half of the results that didn't give you the answer you'd hoped for.
Such science would be pointless. And so with half the truth (whatever is negative) mostly hidden. The whole idea of truth seeking is chucked out the window. As a truth seeker (of course practicing the golden rule) you would either have to always be honest (with people you think you can afford to be so unassimilated to the social norms with) or you've got nothing.
The other side is not thinking so long term. Not truth seeking. Instead living for the short term. Just having a good time. Might as well hide the negative. This "anti-honesty" point of view is immensely nihilistic. It believes that people won't learn anything from the truth, that they won't come to any better understanding and instead will just fight. It believes that there are no truths worth understanding.
A short story could go like this:
Two men are the last living people on earth. They are scientists searching desperately for a way to clone, reproduce, somehow save the human race. They've been working a long time. They have one possibly final desperate experiment. The one scientist is especially getting old and sick. He thinks certainly this one should work. And if it doesn't it's over. That's it for the human race.
He falls ill and can't get to the lab to see the results. The other must tell him the results which were a failure. The other recognizes that finally it's no good to tell him the truth. He'll learn nothing that he can use in the future. It's time, finally, to live for the short term. To hide the negative. Finally the truth will hurt too much. And this person can do nothing good with it.
As a twist though, it could turn out that the dying scientist remembers some crucial thing that was done wrong. But with being lied to and told the experiment was a success doesn't bother to mention it as he dies and the race of man ends.
Anyway the result of my honesty is that I'm not as well liked as I'd otherwise be. It's highly ironic in a way because actually to be so damm honest I have to pretty much think like an angel. If one were to go inside the heads of people I associate with and compare it to my own, I wonder what the people who think so little of me would think then?
Maybe they know full well and still just don't care. As long as the ugliness which is in others is so much more hidden, so what? As long as there's a big smile and some silly thing to laugh about, what does it matter? There was never any intention to get very close anyway, so what does it matter?
It isn't just a matter of varying degrees of long term/short term thinking. It gets far more complicated.
It is also being optimistic enough to think a person can handle the truth.
It is also a matter of being incapable of just having a short term good time (being instead "zombiefied").
It is also a matter of not feeling vulnerable so that you're actually in a position to be so honest.
It is also the need to have more "meaningful" connections with people, to be closer emotionally with more people.
.....
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ugly relationships
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1XxILVnt1w
Saw the movie Lars and The Real Girl a bit ago. About a guy who can't stand being near anyone yet is horribly lonely. So he convinces himself that a blow up doll is real. And that's his girlfriend.
I thought it interesting that I was feeling like it hit too close to home.... And what I'm thinking is that lots and lots of people at one time or other will pretend that someone is something that actually they aren't. Lots of infatuations, failed romances are that way. I've had bad relationships in the past where I just needed this or that sort of person to exist... and to an extent I ignored the obvious and told myself that some person in the real world was exactly that... when of course they weren't at all.
So although I don't have a blow up doll nor will I ever, I have done what Lars does to an extent. Even despite being happily married I've still done it recently. And I think most people probably have done so.
Probably to some extent a key in avoiding really ugly relationships is to not do this. For example, to instead realize early on when you're dealing with a dishonest, crap person.
But then of course it seems lots of people are dishonest in their relationships so even if you are doing your absolute best to see a person as they truly are (and perhaps that's what most of us normally try to do) you're still likely to have plenty of ugly relationships to look back on.
Saw the movie Lars and The Real Girl a bit ago. About a guy who can't stand being near anyone yet is horribly lonely. So he convinces himself that a blow up doll is real. And that's his girlfriend.
I thought it interesting that I was feeling like it hit too close to home.... And what I'm thinking is that lots and lots of people at one time or other will pretend that someone is something that actually they aren't. Lots of infatuations, failed romances are that way. I've had bad relationships in the past where I just needed this or that sort of person to exist... and to an extent I ignored the obvious and told myself that some person in the real world was exactly that... when of course they weren't at all.
So although I don't have a blow up doll nor will I ever, I have done what Lars does to an extent. Even despite being happily married I've still done it recently. And I think most people probably have done so.
Probably to some extent a key in avoiding really ugly relationships is to not do this. For example, to instead realize early on when you're dealing with a dishonest, crap person.
But then of course it seems lots of people are dishonest in their relationships so even if you are doing your absolute best to see a person as they truly are (and perhaps that's what most of us normally try to do) you're still likely to have plenty of ugly relationships to look back on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
