I think there's more than one reason that people decide to perform selfless acts.
For one thing I think it can be a matter of deciding to empathize with the suffering of others. And once one has made that choice, then they are in a sense suffering also. And then alleviating/lessening the other's suffering alleviates their own suffering. Whenever we're empathizing we're in a sense connected and thus selfless acts are selfish in the sense that we're also that other person or animal.
Why do we ever choose to empathize with others?
In seeking to understand the world around us we naturally try to see the other's point of view. This means that we often end up empathizing with the suffering of others. Or just empathizing in general. Thus we end up being connected and performing acts just for others that in a sense don't feel selfless... And some of us are simply better at empathy than others.
Then the question is concerning those who aren't so altruistic. Is it because they're not as good at empathy? Partially yes. Or because they just aren't trying because they don't care as much about understanding the world? Partially yes. Or because they're consciously turning off their empathy when it's for helping creatures that won't help them personally in return? Partially yes.
The other concept of altruism I can think of is that it's actually just selfishness when looking at a very long term frame of view. Trying to create a world where instead of people bouncing anger and indifference all over the place we instead try to make compassion and happiness echo, reverberate, bounce through eternity...
To eventually come back to ourselves.
---
And then all that morality is really is altruism, actually.
All our actions are a combination of the selfish and altruistic. At every moment we are attempting to be happy either in the long term or the short term. The case of altruism is what appears the most obvious exception. But above, it's explained away. It is either a strange sort of long term selfishness or an attempt at understanding the world that connects us to the suffering of others.
The latter half of the previous post about morality... It's not so well explained. Not well written. There is something of two levels to it that causes confusion. But still badly explained.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
memory, morality
I feel ashamed for being touched at all by the stress of life. I feel ashamed for honestly expressing my annoyance/anger at the way this world is. I feel this way because I currently don't have much stress and have managed (at least lately) to forget past stresses.
So I forget the past stresses and am relatively "happy" at the moment. Just enough going on that I'm not quite bored. Yet I remember talking quite negatively at times in this blog. Why did I do so?
Well because really I was stressed and I don't actually think it's a good thing to just be quiet about all the negatives of this world.
But at the same time it's in me to try to just forget. Ultimately we can't ever have any instant in time that we're happy unless we forget all negatives. And this process works in me (to an extent) as it does in others. Then what's left is the memory of ranting about negatives in this blog.
I guess I could try to forget that too?
The other stuff, the suffering I've gone through can simply disappear like it never actually happened, but there's a written record left of my ranting, focusing on negatives, etc...
So this feels like some wrong thing. Like I should be embarrassed and/or ashamed. How much inappropriate ranting have I done here? I don't really remember. It's probably not as bad as I think. But to a "normal" person it's probably plenty bad enough.
To some extent it's a bad memory and recreating the past and doing so incorrectly (I don't actually want at the moment to go back and reread this blog so much today...) and then what if I said something very negative like such and such? Or just something that can easily be misinterpreted?
Silliness.
I don't want to forget. That's the point. (long term)
But yet I do want to forget. Because I must to ever have a moment of happiness. (now)
I want to focus on all the ways in which we cause one another to suffer. To find answers. Ways to improve how we interact, etc. So this blog is about being incredibly negative. About never just focusing on short term happiness. Never ignoring/forgeting the negatives.
...with the forgetting of past stress I only remember I wasn't "coping" well. I wasn't happy back then. Actually I had damm good reason to be annoyed with the situations with which I was so annoyed. But now, forget all that. Forget all that negative stuff. All that's left is me not being happy, thus I ought to feel ashamed of myself for being unhappy.
It's a simple absurdity. Forgetting half of the past thus the context is lost. So like Kundera's character ripping an old diary to shreds in disgust that he finds many years later. He's forgotten all the perfectly good reasons why he acted the way he did.
So someone treats you badly and you get angry. Maybe eventually you manage to forget how they treated you. Now all that's left is the memory of you getting all angry. What the hell's wrong with you? What a shameful thing that. I guess you better forget that part to.
...but on the other hand I was thinking that generaly we remember being treated badly much more so than we remember ourselves doing bad things. Generally the people who've really hurt us, totally forget what they even did while we still remember it so clearly...
Yes? No? Just totally depends on the person....?
Maybe this here is just a special case in that a written record exists. And that otherwise the last part above is generally true...
---
There is a double basis for morality. The first is utilitarianism, where we are concerned about the greatest happiness for the greatest number over some long term (but actually solely for selfish reasons). With this method we establish our concept of morality, which varies somewhat from person to person because people have a different idea over how long the long term should be... But on this basis we establish a basic set of rules.
Of course for some people the thinking is so incredibly short term that 'the rules' they've calculated aren't much more than doing whatever it seems the majority is doing. Morality becomes simply conforming. Marveling with the rest at the emperor's new clothes, etc. And it can still be incredibly complex though. Some person may manage to get one single differential equation correct while making addition mistakes on other problems.
THEN in day to day living we rarely if ever attempt to calculate the most moral actions. We usually just dumbly follow whatever set of rules we've come up with.
When just following the rules without thinking, emotions get involved. When one follows "the rules" successfully they feel proud of themselves. When they see someone not following their own set of rules they may think them a monster, etc.
So there's a complicated calculation for their basic rules based on short term versus long term thinking. But in day to day living they simply follow those rules and feel pride/shame to the extent they do or do not successfully follow them.
These two get confused. People try to examine why do they ever bother doing seemingly nonselfish actions and they're stuck with feeling pride and 'doing the right thing' based on the moral rules they've established. Often they never manage to get to the underlying calculations that they've somehow made. In trying to get other people to follow their own rules they make emotional appeals that can't work unless the person had already made calculations that resulted in the same day to day rules.
Some people have made up their basic set of rules in such an unconscious manner that they don't even realize they've done so at all. As a result these people don't believe utilitarianism exists. They believe absolute moral laws, Kantian ethics, whatever. Absurdity. Or they recall people justifying killing some people now for some longer term greater good that maybe never came and on that basis have decided therefore utilitarianism is evil. Absurdity.
One way or another people manage to get it all effed up and the end result is that I can't recall anyone getting to the heart that all morality is very simply, bluntly, long term selfishness.
If they did, they'd realize a lot of contradictions between how they act and what they say they believe, etc.
Anyway, the really long term thinker recognizes that someone else's suffering could eventually reduce their own happiness in turn... Out of their own long term selfishness they want the world to be a better place to live in. The short termer has no such concerns, your pain is just your pain. He's "sorry" that you're in pain and he really "wishes you the best" (or "hopes for the best" I guess if he's a militant atheist) but he can't see it affecting him in turn anytime soon so he's not really going to worry about it.
He's much happier then you. He focuses on the positive of himself and this world. He is excessively proud of himself. Doubts are usually ignored. He's sure he's right. His mind is closed and he sleeps easy at night.
The long termer persecutes himself. He is constantly questioning his actions. He constantly has himself on trial as he searches for better and better ways to think and live. The long termer is not ignoring the negatives to enjoy life now, he is instead searching for negatives. Scrutinizing his potentially mistaken thoughts, his subconscious drives, to try to achieve greater happiness for all in some distant future. He is openminded because he is a long termer.
And to the extent he is a long termer he is miserable. To the extent he is truly openminded he lives in a constant state of apprehension.
---
To really think of anyone's suffering is to suffer yourself. Any man who can honestly claim he's always happy is perfectly immoral. Happiness is not something to brag about. Only in a dysfunctional winner take all dog eat dog society would people brag about such. One should instead boast of the suffering they have taken on. (OK, that's slightly stupid.) The suffering they spend time thinking about which they could instead just ignore. Not just the sufferings of others but also their own suffering as through analyzing such things one can find long term solutions which can then be used by all of society. Solutions a little less brutal then: "Shut up and quit thinking about it."
So I forget the past stresses and am relatively "happy" at the moment. Just enough going on that I'm not quite bored. Yet I remember talking quite negatively at times in this blog. Why did I do so?
Well because really I was stressed and I don't actually think it's a good thing to just be quiet about all the negatives of this world.
But at the same time it's in me to try to just forget. Ultimately we can't ever have any instant in time that we're happy unless we forget all negatives. And this process works in me (to an extent) as it does in others. Then what's left is the memory of ranting about negatives in this blog.
I guess I could try to forget that too?
The other stuff, the suffering I've gone through can simply disappear like it never actually happened, but there's a written record left of my ranting, focusing on negatives, etc...
So this feels like some wrong thing. Like I should be embarrassed and/or ashamed. How much inappropriate ranting have I done here? I don't really remember. It's probably not as bad as I think. But to a "normal" person it's probably plenty bad enough.
To some extent it's a bad memory and recreating the past and doing so incorrectly (I don't actually want at the moment to go back and reread this blog so much today...) and then what if I said something very negative like such and such? Or just something that can easily be misinterpreted?
Silliness.
I don't want to forget. That's the point. (long term)
But yet I do want to forget. Because I must to ever have a moment of happiness. (now)
I want to focus on all the ways in which we cause one another to suffer. To find answers. Ways to improve how we interact, etc. So this blog is about being incredibly negative. About never just focusing on short term happiness. Never ignoring/forgeting the negatives.
...with the forgetting of past stress I only remember I wasn't "coping" well. I wasn't happy back then. Actually I had damm good reason to be annoyed with the situations with which I was so annoyed. But now, forget all that. Forget all that negative stuff. All that's left is me not being happy, thus I ought to feel ashamed of myself for being unhappy.
It's a simple absurdity. Forgetting half of the past thus the context is lost. So like Kundera's character ripping an old diary to shreds in disgust that he finds many years later. He's forgotten all the perfectly good reasons why he acted the way he did.
So someone treats you badly and you get angry. Maybe eventually you manage to forget how they treated you. Now all that's left is the memory of you getting all angry. What the hell's wrong with you? What a shameful thing that. I guess you better forget that part to.
...but on the other hand I was thinking that generaly we remember being treated badly much more so than we remember ourselves doing bad things. Generally the people who've really hurt us, totally forget what they even did while we still remember it so clearly...
Yes? No? Just totally depends on the person....?
Maybe this here is just a special case in that a written record exists. And that otherwise the last part above is generally true...
---
There is a double basis for morality. The first is utilitarianism, where we are concerned about the greatest happiness for the greatest number over some long term (but actually solely for selfish reasons). With this method we establish our concept of morality, which varies somewhat from person to person because people have a different idea over how long the long term should be... But on this basis we establish a basic set of rules.
Of course for some people the thinking is so incredibly short term that 'the rules' they've calculated aren't much more than doing whatever it seems the majority is doing. Morality becomes simply conforming. Marveling with the rest at the emperor's new clothes, etc. And it can still be incredibly complex though. Some person may manage to get one single differential equation correct while making addition mistakes on other problems.
THEN in day to day living we rarely if ever attempt to calculate the most moral actions. We usually just dumbly follow whatever set of rules we've come up with.
When just following the rules without thinking, emotions get involved. When one follows "the rules" successfully they feel proud of themselves. When they see someone not following their own set of rules they may think them a monster, etc.
So there's a complicated calculation for their basic rules based on short term versus long term thinking. But in day to day living they simply follow those rules and feel pride/shame to the extent they do or do not successfully follow them.
These two get confused. People try to examine why do they ever bother doing seemingly nonselfish actions and they're stuck with feeling pride and 'doing the right thing' based on the moral rules they've established. Often they never manage to get to the underlying calculations that they've somehow made. In trying to get other people to follow their own rules they make emotional appeals that can't work unless the person had already made calculations that resulted in the same day to day rules.
Some people have made up their basic set of rules in such an unconscious manner that they don't even realize they've done so at all. As a result these people don't believe utilitarianism exists. They believe absolute moral laws, Kantian ethics, whatever. Absurdity. Or they recall people justifying killing some people now for some longer term greater good that maybe never came and on that basis have decided therefore utilitarianism is evil. Absurdity.
One way or another people manage to get it all effed up and the end result is that I can't recall anyone getting to the heart that all morality is very simply, bluntly, long term selfishness.
If they did, they'd realize a lot of contradictions between how they act and what they say they believe, etc.
Anyway, the really long term thinker recognizes that someone else's suffering could eventually reduce their own happiness in turn... Out of their own long term selfishness they want the world to be a better place to live in. The short termer has no such concerns, your pain is just your pain. He's "sorry" that you're in pain and he really "wishes you the best" (or "hopes for the best" I guess if he's a militant atheist) but he can't see it affecting him in turn anytime soon so he's not really going to worry about it.
He's much happier then you. He focuses on the positive of himself and this world. He is excessively proud of himself. Doubts are usually ignored. He's sure he's right. His mind is closed and he sleeps easy at night.
The long termer persecutes himself. He is constantly questioning his actions. He constantly has himself on trial as he searches for better and better ways to think and live. The long termer is not ignoring the negatives to enjoy life now, he is instead searching for negatives. Scrutinizing his potentially mistaken thoughts, his subconscious drives, to try to achieve greater happiness for all in some distant future. He is openminded because he is a long termer.
And to the extent he is a long termer he is miserable. To the extent he is truly openminded he lives in a constant state of apprehension.
---
To really think of anyone's suffering is to suffer yourself. Any man who can honestly claim he's always happy is perfectly immoral. Happiness is not something to brag about. Only in a dysfunctional winner take all dog eat dog society would people brag about such. One should instead boast of the suffering they have taken on. (OK, that's slightly stupid.) The suffering they spend time thinking about which they could instead just ignore. Not just the sufferings of others but also their own suffering as through analyzing such things one can find long term solutions which can then be used by all of society. Solutions a little less brutal then: "Shut up and quit thinking about it."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
http://www.ruthheidrich.com/Tarahumara.html
Don't know how they manage it. I've been going on a two hour run once a week and lately I've been really getting a headache afterwards. I wonder if I'm getting hypokalemic and/or hyponatremic. I've been pushing it too hard these last three weeks though. I was thinking maybe I need electrolyte pills. Have been drinking just a little gatorade. They run 24 to 72 hours just on corn?
I think I've still improved every run but I've got to make some adjustments. Not enjoying it now. Need to slow down. Somehow not get headaches. Just getting monotonous now.
...this has been a week off and it's such an unusual thing that I hardly know what to do... (I should mainly study, chop chop). Tuesday after my run I went to coworkers house with my wife and met 8 or so other people from work. I wasn't feeling so great after the run. It was fun when finally this one lady showed up from work who's highly intelligent. I rarely see her at work but I really enjoy her company. When we left my wife immediately commented on how much she liked her. My wife and I seem so different but somehow we're very similar. She, my wife, this one also (bluntly put) more intelligent nurse and I watched a rerun of the national spelling bee and tried to figure out the words based on their language roots, etc and somehow had a much funner and more interesting time then the other half of the party which went off and discussed boring crap.
That other intelligent coworker... she's the one I wish would be my trainer, the nurse I probably like best of the 50 or so I work with, she just happens to be my younger sister's best friend. My younger (half) sister is then another person I seemingly have nothing at all in common with but apparently have something essential in common with.
Then Wednesday out with S. Maybe still a bit bleh from the run. My wife at first didn't like S. The way she scowls. Wonderful picture of her scowling on facebook. I love it. Now my wife admits that she's wonderful. I am a pretty good judge of character. My wife thinks I'm not because even when I'm pretty sure a person's not so good I still give them a chance just on that ever so slight chance I'll be wrong.
Was proven very wrong about someone this last week or so. But out of compassion for them I tried to be very nice to them. Repeatedly. Bit comical how they blew me off. I feel sorry for them still and hardly mind the lies and indifference I got for my trouble.
Don't know how they manage it. I've been going on a two hour run once a week and lately I've been really getting a headache afterwards. I wonder if I'm getting hypokalemic and/or hyponatremic. I've been pushing it too hard these last three weeks though. I was thinking maybe I need electrolyte pills. Have been drinking just a little gatorade. They run 24 to 72 hours just on corn?
I think I've still improved every run but I've got to make some adjustments. Not enjoying it now. Need to slow down. Somehow not get headaches. Just getting monotonous now.
...this has been a week off and it's such an unusual thing that I hardly know what to do... (I should mainly study, chop chop). Tuesday after my run I went to coworkers house with my wife and met 8 or so other people from work. I wasn't feeling so great after the run. It was fun when finally this one lady showed up from work who's highly intelligent. I rarely see her at work but I really enjoy her company. When we left my wife immediately commented on how much she liked her. My wife and I seem so different but somehow we're very similar. She, my wife, this one also (bluntly put) more intelligent nurse and I watched a rerun of the national spelling bee and tried to figure out the words based on their language roots, etc and somehow had a much funner and more interesting time then the other half of the party which went off and discussed boring crap.
That other intelligent coworker... she's the one I wish would be my trainer, the nurse I probably like best of the 50 or so I work with, she just happens to be my younger sister's best friend. My younger (half) sister is then another person I seemingly have nothing at all in common with but apparently have something essential in common with.
Then Wednesday out with S. Maybe still a bit bleh from the run. My wife at first didn't like S. The way she scowls. Wonderful picture of her scowling on facebook. I love it. Now my wife admits that she's wonderful. I am a pretty good judge of character. My wife thinks I'm not because even when I'm pretty sure a person's not so good I still give them a chance just on that ever so slight chance I'll be wrong.
Was proven very wrong about someone this last week or so. But out of compassion for them I tried to be very nice to them. Repeatedly. Bit comical how they blew me off. I feel sorry for them still and hardly mind the lies and indifference I got for my trouble.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/8-toxic-personalities-to-avoid-461078/
What an incredibly obscene article.
Although we like to think that the people in our lives are well-adjusted, happy, healthy minded individuals, we sometimes realize that it just isn't so. Personally, I've had moments where I'll be skipping through my day, happy as can be, thinking life is grand and BAM, I'll be blindsided by someone who manages to knock the happy wind out of my sails. Sometimes it is easy to write it off and other times, not so much.
Maybe you are a positive person, but when you are around a certain individual, you feel negative. Or, maybe you have an idealistic view of the world and when you are with certain people, you are made to feel silly, unrealistic or delusional. Or, maybe you pride yourself in being completely independent and in control of your life, but when you are around a certain family member, you regress into a state of childhood.
Some of these situations, and yes, these people, can have a tremendously negative impact on our lives. And, although we are all human and have our 'issues,' some 'issues' are quite frankly, toxic. They are toxic to our happiness. They are toxic to our mental outlook. They are toxic to our self-esteem. And they are toxic to our lives. They can suck the life out of us and even shorten our lifespan.
Here are the worst of the toxic personalities out there and how to spot them:
1. Manipulative Mary: These individuals are experts at manipulation tactics. Is a matter of fact, you may not even realize you have been manipulated until it is too late. These individuals figure out what your 'buttons' are, and push them to get what they want.
Why they are toxic: These people have a way of eating away at your belief system and self-esteem. They find ways to make you do things that you don't necessarily want to do and before you know it, you lose your sense of identity, your personal priorities and your ability to see the reality of the situation. The world all of a sudden becomes centered around their needs and their priorities.
2. Narcissistic Nancy: These people have an extreme sense of self-importance and believe that the world revolves around them. They are often not as sly as the Manipulative Marys of the world, but instead, tend to be a bit overt about getting their needs met. You often want to say to them "It isn't always about you."
Why they are toxic: They are solely focused on their needs, leaving your needs in the dust. You are left disappointed and unfulfilled. Further, they zap your energy by getting you to focus so much on them, that you have nothing left for yourself.
3. Debbie Downers: These people can't appreciate the positive in life. If you tell them that it is a beautiful day, they will tell you about the impending dreary forecast. If you tell them you aced a mid-term, they'll tell you about how difficult the final is going to be.
Why they are toxic: They take the joy out of everything. Your rosy outlook on life continues to get squashed with negativity. Before you know it, their negativity consumes you and you start looking at things with gray colored glasses yourself.
4. Judgmental Jims: When you see things as cute and quirky, they see things as strange and unattractive. If you find people's unique perspectives refreshing, they find them 'wrong'. If you like someone's eclectic taste, they find it 'disturbing' or 'bad'.
Why they are toxic: Judgmental people are much like Debbie Downers. In a world where freedom rings, judgment is sooo over. If the world was a homogeneous place, life would be pretty boring. Spending a lot of time with these types can inadvertently convert you into a judgmental person as well.
5. Dream Killing Keiths: Every time you have an idea, these people tell you why you can't do it. As you achieve, they try to pull you down. As you dream, they are the first to tell you it is impossible.
Why they are toxic: These people are stuck in what is instead of what could be. Further, these individuals eat away at your self-esteem and your belief in yourself. Progress and change can only occur from doing new things and innovating, dreaming the impossible and reaching for the stars.
6. Insincere Illissas: You never quite feel that these people are being sincere. You tell a funny story, they give you a polite laugh. You feel depressed and sad and they give you a 'there, there' type response. You tell them you are excited about something and you get a very ho-hum response.
Why they are toxic: People who aren't sincere or genuine build relationships on superficial criteria. This breeds shallow, meaningless relationships. When you are really in need of a friend, they won't be there. When you really need constructive criticism, they would rather tell you that you are great the way you are. When you need support, they would rather see you fail or make a fool of yourself.
7. Disrespectful Dannys: These people will say or do things at the most inappropriate times and in the most inappropriate ways. In essence, they are more subtle, grown up bullies. Maybe this person is a friend who you confided in and uses your secret against you. Maybe it is a family member who puts their busy-body nose into your affairs when it is none of their business. Or maybe, it is a colleague who says demeaning things to you.
Why they are toxic: These people have no sense of boundaries and don't respect your feelings or, for that matter, your privacy. These people will cause you to feel frustrated and disrespected.
8. Never Enough Nellies: You can never give enough to these people to make them happy. They take you for granted and have unrealistic expectations of you. They find ways to continually fault you and never take responsibility for anything themselves.
Why they are toxic: You will spend so much time trying to please them, that you will end up losing yourself in the process. They will require all of your time and energy, leaving you worn out and your own needs sacrificed.
All of these personalities have several things in common. 1) the more these people get away with their behavior, the more they will continue. 2) Unfortunately, most of these people don't see that what they do is wrong and as a result, talking to them about it will fall on deaf ears, leaving you wondering if you are the crazy one. 3) Most of these people get worse with age, making their impact on you stronger with time.
Frankly, life is too short to spend your time dealing with toxicity. If you can, avoid spending mucho time with people who are indicative of these behaviors and you'll feel a lot happier. Have you encountered these personalities? What have you done? Any personalities you would add?
What an incredibly obscene article.
To change the mind of a closeminded person through the use of reason:
1. You must overcome their suspicion that your "reason" is really just something devious, like the arguments of O.J. Simpson's lawyer. You must overcome their suspicion that ultimately you just want to win arguments at all costs and control people.
If you feel that they are being closeminded you must hide your natural urge to turn to frustration, annoyance, and anger. The urge is natural because when someone is being closeminded reason is generally shut off and this leaves only force. But you must hide such honesty because the minute you express it their mind closes that much more. Because then they really see it as you wanting to force them, to control them.
A truth seeker practices the golden rule and tries to not hide things from others. One never hides things exactly because one wants others to reach all truths the same as you hope to do. But exactly by not hiding things these others see the threat of force and shut down their minds from any learning.
2. You must make it clear that no punishment awaits them if they admit they're wrong...
3. Show them that they don't lose their personal identity by changing their mind. Compliment them about other aspects of who they are. Make them feel other aspects of their persona are what's important about them.
4. Make truth become the way to happiness. An impossible task. The truth so often means focusing on negatives instead of just ignoring them. To ever actually be happy for a given moment we must indeed ignore all sufferings, both are own and that of others. For a person to truly think that truth is the way to happiness, it means looking at the negatives a lot more. We are all spending every moment trying to be happy. The question is to what degree do we focus on long term happiness or immediate short term happiness. Ignoring all negatives right now, means achieving immediate short term happiness. To think that truth is the way to happiness means focusing instead so much more on the long term.
This ultimately is probably how one instead focuses on the long term. By having a long period of time where they cannot be happy right at this moment. Ignoring negatives was not possible. So they learned to focus on the too far future and instead associate truth with happiness instead of the "fake" smile.
But zombiefying people in order to force them to focus on the longer term is no good.
You must instead recognize just what monkeys we are. Realizing to what a huge extent all disagreements are still really solved solely by force in this world. You must address them not like a civilized person (a zombie) but like the monkey they are. You must tiptoe around them concerning any disagreement, doing your best to "not make any sudden movements" lest they think you're really just trying to force them. In this way they hopefully won't automatically turn the disagreement into a battle of wills and seeing who can successfully force the other to change.
-
"Why do you always have to win arguments?"
"Huh? I'm just telling you the reasoning behind my point of view. You in turn tell me the reasoning behind yours. Why would you think I'm just trying to win an argument?"
1. You must overcome their suspicion that your "reason" is really just something devious, like the arguments of O.J. Simpson's lawyer. You must overcome their suspicion that ultimately you just want to win arguments at all costs and control people.
If you feel that they are being closeminded you must hide your natural urge to turn to frustration, annoyance, and anger. The urge is natural because when someone is being closeminded reason is generally shut off and this leaves only force. But you must hide such honesty because the minute you express it their mind closes that much more. Because then they really see it as you wanting to force them, to control them.
A truth seeker practices the golden rule and tries to not hide things from others. One never hides things exactly because one wants others to reach all truths the same as you hope to do. But exactly by not hiding things these others see the threat of force and shut down their minds from any learning.
2. You must make it clear that no punishment awaits them if they admit they're wrong...
3. Show them that they don't lose their personal identity by changing their mind. Compliment them about other aspects of who they are. Make them feel other aspects of their persona are what's important about them.
4. Make truth become the way to happiness. An impossible task. The truth so often means focusing on negatives instead of just ignoring them. To ever actually be happy for a given moment we must indeed ignore all sufferings, both are own and that of others. For a person to truly think that truth is the way to happiness, it means looking at the negatives a lot more. We are all spending every moment trying to be happy. The question is to what degree do we focus on long term happiness or immediate short term happiness. Ignoring all negatives right now, means achieving immediate short term happiness. To think that truth is the way to happiness means focusing instead so much more on the long term.
'I had always wanted you to admire my fasting,' says the Hunger Artist. 'We do admire it,' says the impressario who employs him. 'But you shouldn't admire it' - 'Well then we don't admire it,' says the impressario, 'but why shouldn't we admire it?' - 'Because I have to fast, I can't help it.' - 'What a fellow you are,' says the other, 'and why can't you help it?' - 'Because I couldn't find the food I liked. If I had found it, believe me, I should have made no fuss and stuffed myself like you or anyone else.
Kafka, The Hunger Artist
This ultimately is probably how one instead focuses on the long term. By having a long period of time where they cannot be happy right at this moment. Ignoring negatives was not possible. So they learned to focus on the too far future and instead associate truth with happiness instead of the "fake" smile.
But zombiefying people in order to force them to focus on the longer term is no good.
You must instead recognize just what monkeys we are. Realizing to what a huge extent all disagreements are still really solved solely by force in this world. You must address them not like a civilized person (a zombie) but like the monkey they are. You must tiptoe around them concerning any disagreement, doing your best to "not make any sudden movements" lest they think you're really just trying to force them. In this way they hopefully won't automatically turn the disagreement into a battle of wills and seeing who can successfully force the other to change.
-
"Why do you always have to win arguments?"
"Huh? I'm just telling you the reasoning behind my point of view. You in turn tell me the reasoning behind yours. Why would you think I'm just trying to win an argument?"
Monday, May 25, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090523/ap_on_re_as/as_china_suicide_help
I recall an episode of the Phil Donahue show from 25 years ago. Back then talk shows could still be somewhat intellectual and Phil's show was. He recently had a new show but made the mistake of somewhat questioning the Iraq War; having some people on the show who disagreed with it. His show was quickly canceled with the explanation that his ratings were bad, which was a lie.
Anyway he had an episode about suicide where he had on a lady who had been seriously depressed for many, many years and really just wanted to die. Very quickly a lady in the audience got up to ask (with a look of disgust on her face) why she hadn't just killed herself if she really wanted to die? Clearly she was just an attention seeker. Quite a few people in the audience clapped or voiced their approval.
Then I recall a guy who recently put up a link to a live cam of him killing himself to a discussion board. Most people laughed, told to him to go ahead, etc.
Then I recall linking this to another board, a board that has the word 'compassion' right in it's subtitle. Quickly multiple people come up talking about how you have to watch out for 'drama llamas', people just looking for attention, etc.
This in turn reminds me of quite a few others things, of people responding to others not hiding their pain with disgust, suspicion, etc...
I think that in order to ever truly be happy for a given moment, you have to ignore all negatives. You have to ignore your sufferings and the suffering of others. I don't think it's wrong to have moments when you do this. But i think a lot... most people spend too much time doing this? A lot of people want to ignore the negatives, the suffering way too often. And when someone else doesn't hide their own pain, they often respond with hate.
It's impossible to say to just how much of our time we should spend ignoring the negatives. I do wish that people would spend more time caring about the sufferings of others. And when they've reached the point that they respond with hate or suspicion to people not hiding their pain, they've just gone way too far.
....Beyond trying I guess to justify indifference by dismissing such behavior as "attention seeking", I've then seen a lot of people claim that the person not hiding their unhappiness is either being manipulative or commiting "emotional blackmail". Which... even if it were true I'd really rather err on the side of showing compassion and thus getting "manipulated".
...it sounds strange but I've really seen such behavior a lot. It really seems to be the majority who acts this way in my experience...
I think another concern is that there is an overriding sentiment that we're all supposed to be rugged individualists and that ultimately, just the whole way our society is set-up; the car/TV culture, we really don't have much to do with most other people and there's just not much of a clear selfish reason to be compassionate to these endless multitudes that we aren't really connected to. So most expect that everyone is supposed to hide their unhappiness and be a "rugged individualist" and when someone doesn't, people respond with disgust, because to them, this is a person who isn't properly conforming.
And in a society based on force instead of reason (which I think is largely the reality of this world) the assumption is that this apparent plea for help is a trick. They must just want attention. They're just being manipulative. They're trying to commit emotional blackmail... They should be ignored or perhaps even attacked. At best they think the proper response to any display of unhappines is: "Go see a psychiatrist." As opposed to a nondysfunctional community where the response would be other members of the community simply showing some concern, some compassion, etc.
People then argue that it's dangerous for nonprofessionals to get involved as if any display of unhappiness means deep psychological issues (hallucinations, etc? and in trying to help you might say something that's worse than nothing at all ) as opposed to the reality that this is world where we're all struggling to survive and most of us are bit isolated as compared to the manner in which mankind has lived for many thousands of years. And that most people just could use a few more friends. Although occasionally they may need quite a bit more...
"I pushed him off because jumpers like Chen are very selfish. Their action violates a lot of public interest," Lai was quoted as saying by Xinhua. "They do not really dare to kill themselves. Instead, they just want to raise the relevant government authorities' attention to their appeals.".....
The paper said Lai was released on bail Friday but did not give any details. It said he had been on medication for "a mental illness" for decades and had been on his way to a hospital for his pills.
I recall an episode of the Phil Donahue show from 25 years ago. Back then talk shows could still be somewhat intellectual and Phil's show was. He recently had a new show but made the mistake of somewhat questioning the Iraq War; having some people on the show who disagreed with it. His show was quickly canceled with the explanation that his ratings were bad, which was a lie.
Anyway he had an episode about suicide where he had on a lady who had been seriously depressed for many, many years and really just wanted to die. Very quickly a lady in the audience got up to ask (with a look of disgust on her face) why she hadn't just killed herself if she really wanted to die? Clearly she was just an attention seeker. Quite a few people in the audience clapped or voiced their approval.
Then I recall a guy who recently put up a link to a live cam of him killing himself to a discussion board. Most people laughed, told to him to go ahead, etc.
Then I recall linking this to another board, a board that has the word 'compassion' right in it's subtitle. Quickly multiple people come up talking about how you have to watch out for 'drama llamas', people just looking for attention, etc.
This in turn reminds me of quite a few others things, of people responding to others not hiding their pain with disgust, suspicion, etc...
I think that in order to ever truly be happy for a given moment, you have to ignore all negatives. You have to ignore your sufferings and the suffering of others. I don't think it's wrong to have moments when you do this. But i think a lot... most people spend too much time doing this? A lot of people want to ignore the negatives, the suffering way too often. And when someone else doesn't hide their own pain, they often respond with hate.
It's impossible to say to just how much of our time we should spend ignoring the negatives. I do wish that people would spend more time caring about the sufferings of others. And when they've reached the point that they respond with hate or suspicion to people not hiding their pain, they've just gone way too far.
....Beyond trying I guess to justify indifference by dismissing such behavior as "attention seeking", I've then seen a lot of people claim that the person not hiding their unhappiness is either being manipulative or commiting "emotional blackmail". Which... even if it were true I'd really rather err on the side of showing compassion and thus getting "manipulated".
...it sounds strange but I've really seen such behavior a lot. It really seems to be the majority who acts this way in my experience...
I think another concern is that there is an overriding sentiment that we're all supposed to be rugged individualists and that ultimately, just the whole way our society is set-up; the car/TV culture, we really don't have much to do with most other people and there's just not much of a clear selfish reason to be compassionate to these endless multitudes that we aren't really connected to. So most expect that everyone is supposed to hide their unhappiness and be a "rugged individualist" and when someone doesn't, people respond with disgust, because to them, this is a person who isn't properly conforming.
And in a society based on force instead of reason (which I think is largely the reality of this world) the assumption is that this apparent plea for help is a trick. They must just want attention. They're just being manipulative. They're trying to commit emotional blackmail... They should be ignored or perhaps even attacked. At best they think the proper response to any display of unhappines is: "Go see a psychiatrist." As opposed to a nondysfunctional community where the response would be other members of the community simply showing some concern, some compassion, etc.
People then argue that it's dangerous for nonprofessionals to get involved as if any display of unhappiness means deep psychological issues (hallucinations, etc? and in trying to help you might say something that's worse than nothing at all ) as opposed to the reality that this is world where we're all struggling to survive and most of us are bit isolated as compared to the manner in which mankind has lived for many thousands of years. And that most people just could use a few more friends. Although occasionally they may need quite a bit more...
Friday, May 22, 2009
This is so weird I don't even know how to respond to it... You clearly have some deeply rooted problems that you somehow seem to project against me, and anyone else you see as representatives of .... Have you ever considered moving on with your life instead of being stuck in the same old shit year after year? I think it would be good for you.
I don't think anything I'll say will ever make you change your mind about me, and you're not known to ever be able to change your mind or admit you're wrong either, so it's pretty useless to even argue with you. You have your strong opinion about me, and no matter what I do or say you'll never change your mind. Why don't we leave it at that? Or are we looking at another five years of bitter, negative and hateful posts from you? Talk about being a postive force....
...I have no intention of trying to meet your slandering against me, I know who I am and what I'm doing, and you won't change this no matter how much you try to bully me into believing it. I guess this is how you deal with people, and I guess many people must get scared of this horrible behaviour of yours. And I also assume you really have no self awareness of it either, considering how high and mighty you see yourself being.
...you really should feel a moral obligation to do this, anything else would be terribly hypocritic of you. Unless of course you're happy being the bitter bystander not doing anything but complaining and giving people who actually do things shit. My guess is the latter, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
...It has been interesting to hear your view of the situation, somewhere deep down I hoped to get through to you and find out why you have so much hate in you, but it seems to be much more deeply rooted than I thought. Too bad, and I really hope you'll eventually see this yourself and seek help for it.
Please continue... if you like, but you should know that the years of bullying you have put us through has to come to an end now. We won't tolerate any more of this behaviour, you have been allowed to keep this up way much longer than anyone else.
...This is certainly not an easy decision, or something that we take lightly on. I don't think you understand how much pain and hurt you have caused by your behaviour the last couple of years, and just how much leeway you have been given at the expense of the people you have been bullying.
I think that force is so ingrained in our society that even when we appear to be trying to use reason to discuss disagreements, people suspect it's a trick or they suspect that the 'reasoner' may not even realize that really it's still just about trying to control others. They suspect force even when it appears to be reason and react as if it were an attempt to control them with force. They keep their mind's closed and thus the 'force' is unsuccessful.
http://piercework.typepad.com/just_jen/2009/05/onfiction-sensitive-children-and-illness.html
And so what of all those years with the sharp chest pains and being told there was a chance my heart valve could give out very suddenly? Did it effect me? I've not a clue nor will I.
And so what of all those years with the sharp chest pains and being told there was a chance my heart valve could give out very suddenly? Did it effect me? I've not a clue nor will I.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
I've grown taller
Just from scientific curiousity it's interesting that I appear to have grown at least an inch sometime in the last 6 months... I had noticed a few littles things which I didn't bother to look into. (I'm 36 and I don't really care how tall I am anyway.) But when I fasted recently I just 'felt' as if I was growing. That strange sensitivity I've mentioned previously. I felt like I was growing when I was a kid and then when I was 14 I felt like I was unfortunately pretty much finished at about 6'4". Here recently I again felt like I was growing and my head seemed to be slightly closer to the top of door frames.
Then this last weekend I went to my cousin's wedding. I hadn't seen him in 6 years (which was slightly awkward). Last I saw him he was 21 years old and definitely a bit taller then me. Now, it really appeared that I was taller than him. Also my sister I hadn't seen in maybe 4 or 5 months commented that I seemed taller then she remembered...
I measured myself last night (with shoes on) and i was 6'4" and 7/8ths of an inch. This morning I got curious about the shoe soles, etc in the past I measured myself while wearing normal tennis shoes, etc. This morning I was 6'5" and 5/8ths of an inch. So I shrink 3/4ths of an inch during the day. (Same as my wife who also measured herself last night and this morning.) And I've definitely grown at least an inch here at the age of 36.
I'm curious what would cause such a thing. Really wonder about the fasting... I had quit doing it because it got in the way of the long runs I was trying to do every 4 days. Now that I'm just doing them every 7 days I shall start fasting once a week again. (Not as an experiment to see if I grow more, primarily just for good health, but shall have to keep track of my height just a bit out of curiousity.)
It's not so very normal to be growing at the age of 36.
Then this last weekend I went to my cousin's wedding. I hadn't seen him in 6 years (which was slightly awkward). Last I saw him he was 21 years old and definitely a bit taller then me. Now, it really appeared that I was taller than him. Also my sister I hadn't seen in maybe 4 or 5 months commented that I seemed taller then she remembered...
I measured myself last night (with shoes on) and i was 6'4" and 7/8ths of an inch. This morning I got curious about the shoe soles, etc in the past I measured myself while wearing normal tennis shoes, etc. This morning I was 6'5" and 5/8ths of an inch. So I shrink 3/4ths of an inch during the day. (Same as my wife who also measured herself last night and this morning.) And I've definitely grown at least an inch here at the age of 36.
I'm curious what would cause such a thing. Really wonder about the fasting... I had quit doing it because it got in the way of the long runs I was trying to do every 4 days. Now that I'm just doing them every 7 days I shall start fasting once a week again. (Not as an experiment to see if I grow more, primarily just for good health, but shall have to keep track of my height just a bit out of curiousity.)
It's not so very normal to be growing at the age of 36.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
If you imagine, in so far as it is approximately possible, the sum total of distress, pain and suffering of every kind which the sun shines upon in its course, you will have to admit it would have been much better if the sun had been able to call up the phenomenon of life as little as possible on the earth as on the moon; and if, here as tehre, the surface were still in a crystalline condition.
You can also look upon our life as an episode unprofitably disturbing the blessed calm of nothingness. In any case, even he who has found life tolerably bearable will, the longer he lives, feel the more clearly that on the whole it is a disappointment, nay a cheat. if two men who were friends in youth meet in old age after the lapse of an entire generation, the principal feeling the sight of one another, lnked as it is with recollections of earlier years, will arouse in both will be one of total disappointment with the whole of life, which once lay so fair before them in the rosy dawn of youth, promised so much and performed so little. This feeling will dominate so decidedly over every other that they will not even think it necessary to speak of it but will silently assume it as the basis of their conversation.
If the act of procreation were neither the outcome of a desire nor accompanied by feelings of pleasure, but a matter to be decided on the basis of purely rational considerations, is it likely the human race would still exist? Would each of us not rather have felt so much pity for the coming generation as to prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at least not wish to take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood.
For the world is Hell, and men are on the one hand the tormented souls and on the other the devils in it.
-
The story of the Fall is consequently the only thing which reconciles me to the Old Testament; I even regard it as the sole metaphysical truth contained in that book, even though it does appear clothed in allegory. For our existence resembles nothing so much as the consequence of a misdeed, punishment for a forbidden desire.
As a reliable compass for orientating yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamaties, sufferings, torments and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way. This outlook will enable us to view the so-called imperfections of the majority of men, i.e. their moral and intellectual shortcomings and the facial appearance resulting thereform, without surprise and certainly without indignation: for we shall always bear in mind where we are and consequently regard every man first and foremost as a being who exists only as a consequence of his culpability and whose life is an expiation of the crime of being born.
The conviction that the world, and therefore man too, is something which really ought not to exist is in fact calculated to instill in us indulgence towards one another: for what can be expected of beings cplaed in such a situation as we are? From this point of view one might indeed consider that the appropriate form of address between man and man ought to be, not 'monsier, sir', but 'fellow sufferer, companion in misery'. However strange this may sound it corresponds to the nature of the case, makes us see other men in a true lilght and reminds us of what are the most necessary of all things: tolerance, patience, forbearance and charity, which each of us needs and which each of us therefore owes.
-
You could, to be sure, base on considerations of this kind a theory that the greatest wisdom consists in enjoying the present and making this enjoyment the goal of life, because the present is all that is real and everything else merely imaginary. But you could just as well call this mode of life the greatest folly: for that which in a moment ceases to exist, which vanishes as completely as a dream, cannot be worth any serious effort.
-
The scenes of our life resemble pictures in rough mosaic; they are ineffective from close up, and have to be viewed from a distance if they are to seem beautiful. That is why to attain something desired is to discover how vain it is; and why, though we live all our lives in expectation of better things, we often at the same time long regretfully for what is part. The present, on the other hand, is regarded as something quite temporary and serving only as the road to our goal. That is why most men discover when they look back on their life that they have the whole time been living ad interim, and are surprised to see that which they let go by so unregarded and unenjoyed was precisely their life, was precisely that in expectation of which they lived....[/i]
Schopenhauer detested the hollow conformism which he found in the academic establishment of his time. Also he wrote of the most popular philosopher of his time that (his) emblem should be a cuttle fish creating a cloud of obscurity around itself so that no one sees what it is, with the legend, (in Latin) "fortified by my own obscurity."
I agree. Today it's the same and I recall Foucault (I think) admitting basically that he used such 'clouding' language simply because he had to conform in order to be taken seriously.
Although he was only able to be so openly critical (and still be known today) because through inheritance he was rich. And still he was unknown for about 50 years after writing his most impressive work.
Talks in great detail about life being nothing but want, want, want then boredom, which is to say stress then boredom. Basically my chop chop / tick tock except a lot more eloquent and sane sounding.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Definitions
The seven 'deadly sins': Pride, Anger, Envy, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Greed
Gluttony, greed and (excessive) lust are all variants of the same thing. They're all attempts to move away from nonexistence which end up being excessive. (Although I'm not too sure when (if ever) lust gets excessive exactly. Fellini's Casanova?) They are straightforward attempts at happiness that are failing.
Sloth or laziness is an existential problem where you can't really see the point in doing anything. No matter what you do you won't actually be moving away from nonexistence so why bother?
Envy is where you see that someone else has some valuable thing that you perceive possessing would move you away from nonexistence. Envy is tied into hate/anger as we're hardly planning on using reason to take away the thing from the person. Instead some form of force is used.
Anger is about wanting to use force because you perceive that some person stands between you and decreasing your distance from nonexistence. And you think they can't be reasoned with.
(Excessive) Pride is more interesting. The dichotomy is pride versus humility. But it's quite close to being closedminded versus openminded. Excessive pride is like arrogance, being too sure of yourself, too convinced you're right, that you're wonderful, etc. All of that is basically just closemindedness. While being humble instead can mean seeing that you could be wrong, that you hardly know anything, etc, which means basically being openminded.
But of course what they really wanted was for people to bow down to god, considering him all powerful and themselves as disgusting bugs in comparison. This idea entirely trumped the openminded/closeminded idea that would have been of such great use. So people think of pride versus humility and they picture some imaginary god that is so so great compared to them. They're pitiful in comparison and should meakly follow the rules he has already laid out for them. And so that's what they do instead of seeing pride versus humility as being the same as closedminded versus openminded. And so they're humble before an imaginary god but arrogant before all real people.
-
'Unhappiness' is the perception of moving closer towards nonexistence. The essential types are anger, fear, sadness and existential nihilism (boredom, laziness...). When you perceive that you are moving towards nonexistence is there any alternative than these 4 essentials?
To try to overcome your feelings of anger (or hate, frustration, annoyance...) you can at least recognize what's going on. You think someone can't be reasoned with so you're subverting to your monkey ancestry and wanting to basically beat the crap out of them to force them to do as you say.
It is at least better to feel anger then fear. With anger you've at least got an idea what you actually want to do to remedy the situation. Some entity is causing you to move closer to nonexistence and they need some force! Fear is on the other hand perceiving that you're moving towards nonexistence and being very doubtful about what action you can possibly take.
Sadness is the form of fear where you want help from others. Sadness is better then fear right up till others reject you/will not give you any help. Although at least then you've got a bit more to work with to turn instead to anger...
One can get away from anger, fear and sadness by going instead to existential nihilism. (Instead of being stressed, realize that life is ultimately a short and meaningless thing.) And then when they get sick of that they can hopefully instead go get stressed out again.
Otherwise one can attempt to change their perception of the situation. (By actually changing the situation or by some other way.)
I'm not entirely sure where disgust/revulsion belongs. It is the considering of some thing that we perceive would move us closer to nonexistence but that we don't really perceive it to be that much of a real threat. And/or we take a step back and try to look at it 'objectively'. It seems it can be tied to fear or anger.
Gluttony, greed and (excessive) lust are all variants of the same thing. They're all attempts to move away from nonexistence which end up being excessive. (Although I'm not too sure when (if ever) lust gets excessive exactly. Fellini's Casanova?) They are straightforward attempts at happiness that are failing.
Sloth or laziness is an existential problem where you can't really see the point in doing anything. No matter what you do you won't actually be moving away from nonexistence so why bother?
Envy is where you see that someone else has some valuable thing that you perceive possessing would move you away from nonexistence. Envy is tied into hate/anger as we're hardly planning on using reason to take away the thing from the person. Instead some form of force is used.
Anger is about wanting to use force because you perceive that some person stands between you and decreasing your distance from nonexistence. And you think they can't be reasoned with.
(Excessive) Pride is more interesting. The dichotomy is pride versus humility. But it's quite close to being closedminded versus openminded. Excessive pride is like arrogance, being too sure of yourself, too convinced you're right, that you're wonderful, etc. All of that is basically just closemindedness. While being humble instead can mean seeing that you could be wrong, that you hardly know anything, etc, which means basically being openminded.
But of course what they really wanted was for people to bow down to god, considering him all powerful and themselves as disgusting bugs in comparison. This idea entirely trumped the openminded/closeminded idea that would have been of such great use. So people think of pride versus humility and they picture some imaginary god that is so so great compared to them. They're pitiful in comparison and should meakly follow the rules he has already laid out for them. And so that's what they do instead of seeing pride versus humility as being the same as closedminded versus openminded. And so they're humble before an imaginary god but arrogant before all real people.
-
'Unhappiness' is the perception of moving closer towards nonexistence. The essential types are anger, fear, sadness and existential nihilism (boredom, laziness...). When you perceive that you are moving towards nonexistence is there any alternative than these 4 essentials?
To try to overcome your feelings of anger (or hate, frustration, annoyance...) you can at least recognize what's going on. You think someone can't be reasoned with so you're subverting to your monkey ancestry and wanting to basically beat the crap out of them to force them to do as you say.
It is at least better to feel anger then fear. With anger you've at least got an idea what you actually want to do to remedy the situation. Some entity is causing you to move closer to nonexistence and they need some force! Fear is on the other hand perceiving that you're moving towards nonexistence and being very doubtful about what action you can possibly take.
Sadness is the form of fear where you want help from others. Sadness is better then fear right up till others reject you/will not give you any help. Although at least then you've got a bit more to work with to turn instead to anger...
One can get away from anger, fear and sadness by going instead to existential nihilism. (Instead of being stressed, realize that life is ultimately a short and meaningless thing.) And then when they get sick of that they can hopefully instead go get stressed out again.
Otherwise one can attempt to change their perception of the situation. (By actually changing the situation or by some other way.)
I'm not entirely sure where disgust/revulsion belongs. It is the considering of some thing that we perceive would move us closer to nonexistence but that we don't really perceive it to be that much of a real threat. And/or we take a step back and try to look at it 'objectively'. It seems it can be tied to fear or anger.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Culture may be encoded in DNA
"Innatism is a philosophical doctrine that holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a 'blank slate' at birth, as early empiricists such as John Locke claimed. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses."
...spending 8 hours in a car with my parents drives home again that am not much of a product of my environment. I'm not a product nor am I blndly rebeling against it. I'm like these birds trying to find their song. But human life is more complex than a song. And earlier generations are trying to force the laters to sing it exactly like they did. Those who still won't are either very strong or like Kafka's Hunger Artist they're simply unable to find any food that they like/unable to stand the cacophony of the song.
"Innatism is a philosophical doctrine that holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a 'blank slate' at birth, as early empiricists such as John Locke claimed. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses."
...spending 8 hours in a car with my parents drives home again that am not much of a product of my environment. I'm not a product nor am I blndly rebeling against it. I'm like these birds trying to find their song. But human life is more complex than a song. And earlier generations are trying to force the laters to sing it exactly like they did. Those who still won't are either very strong or like Kafka's Hunger Artist they're simply unable to find any food that they like/unable to stand the cacophony of the song.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Kitsch shouldn't be thought of being limited to 'art'.
Kitsch is a constant (to some degree) in most of our interactions with one another. Smiling when you see someone when you're not really particularly happy to see them. Withholding negatives and pretending that things are fine, etc. Kitsch is about being dishonest; about hiding or withholding that which would make us real live human beings. Or at least ignoring negatives...
Kitsch is about saying that you're absolutely not a nonconformist and you see nothing really wrong with this status quo.
And it doesn't take a totalitarian state for it to thrive, although I imagine it helps.
What was done to art inside the Iron Curtain was awful. Here today, the concept of kitsch matters more outside of art.
But then the concept grows and maybe becomes too vague; where any selling out becomes kitsch, the second half of Office Space where everything works out just swell, etc...
Kitsch is a constant (to some degree) in most of our interactions with one another. Smiling when you see someone when you're not really particularly happy to see them. Withholding negatives and pretending that things are fine, etc. Kitsch is about being dishonest; about hiding or withholding that which would make us real live human beings. Or at least ignoring negatives...
Kitsch is about saying that you're absolutely not a nonconformist and you see nothing really wrong with this status quo.
And it doesn't take a totalitarian state for it to thrive, although I imagine it helps.
What was done to art inside the Iron Curtain was awful. Here today, the concept of kitsch matters more outside of art.
But then the concept grows and maybe becomes too vague; where any selling out becomes kitsch, the second half of Office Space where everything works out just swell, etc...
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
I think the essential quality of being a friend to someone, of having a meaningful interaction with someone, is being able to disagree with them. To the extent you feel you can't disagree, you've got a big nothing. Just a pretend thing. Something meaningless.
It's sad to think that there are a lot of people who have no one at all they can actually be honest with. I have a few. But I want more. I want Real people. I want meaningful connections. I get sick of knowing that almost all interactions, although not based on outright lies, have an element of withholding in them.
I wish there were more people who could manage to just be honest.
But I understand that usually, in this world, disagreements result in savage behavior, and thus people are full of fear. And the way our society is set up, with the nuclear family, lemmings in shiny metal boxes, etc that there isn't enough reason for them to bother attempting to be honest with one another.
I look at my stepfather. His two daughters aren't close to honest with him. And well, to be honest, they've got some good reason to not bother being honest with him. He turns to force constantly to try to make people do things the way he wants them done. He almost never really uses reason. And he raises his voice. He yells. He will argue to hell and back over the smallest thing. For example this weekend he wants 5 of us to load into a car and go 3 hours out of our way to drop off one person instead of just taking two cars. And it's truly not worth it to not just go along with him. This time I won't bother. I'll bring some books. Just about any normal person wouldn't make a big deal about it but if someone says, 'No, I'll take a separate car." He's liable to fight over it right into a final heart attack.
It's understandable that people just want to avoid him. So that's what they do.
I have for the most part tried to not be that way. I think of Akira Kurosawa's Ran (King Lear adaptation). In which the older brothers just lie to keep out of any fight. The youngest cares enough about his father to tell the truth. The result is a huge fight with that son banished.
So have I done with my father. But in the end in Ran, the old king finds his youngest son and loves him so. I've had huge fights with my dad, given myself huge headaches where it would have been easier to just act like my sisters. Instead I've thought enough of him to act real with him. In the long run I'm the only person who he's got left that he feels really cares about him. I'm the only one who hasn't been meaningless with him. I'm the only friend he's got.
But then, he is my father. On the other hand there are so many people out there. 99.9% of them I'll have a short meaningless exchange with and nothing more. Being actually honest with them, bothering to disagree just has no point to it.
Generally speaking it's hopeless trying to be honest with people. And I must understand I'm going to go through my life with almost no one ever being honest with me.
Edit: I don't mean to make my stepfather sound like a bad person. He's essentially a man really trying to be good. He is not actually a selfish person. He cares about people very much. He's brought over 100 people from the third world to get college educations through a scholarship fund he created and runs (and donates a lot of money to from an ordinary professor salary). He's essentially a good guy who unfortunately has rightwing ideas ingrained in him. The father is the final authority on everything in his mind. And he made up his mind for good a few decades ago.
It's sad to think that there are a lot of people who have no one at all they can actually be honest with. I have a few. But I want more. I want Real people. I want meaningful connections. I get sick of knowing that almost all interactions, although not based on outright lies, have an element of withholding in them.
I wish there were more people who could manage to just be honest.
But I understand that usually, in this world, disagreements result in savage behavior, and thus people are full of fear. And the way our society is set up, with the nuclear family, lemmings in shiny metal boxes, etc that there isn't enough reason for them to bother attempting to be honest with one another.
I look at my stepfather. His two daughters aren't close to honest with him. And well, to be honest, they've got some good reason to not bother being honest with him. He turns to force constantly to try to make people do things the way he wants them done. He almost never really uses reason. And he raises his voice. He yells. He will argue to hell and back over the smallest thing. For example this weekend he wants 5 of us to load into a car and go 3 hours out of our way to drop off one person instead of just taking two cars. And it's truly not worth it to not just go along with him. This time I won't bother. I'll bring some books. Just about any normal person wouldn't make a big deal about it but if someone says, 'No, I'll take a separate car." He's liable to fight over it right into a final heart attack.
It's understandable that people just want to avoid him. So that's what they do.
I have for the most part tried to not be that way. I think of Akira Kurosawa's Ran (King Lear adaptation). In which the older brothers just lie to keep out of any fight. The youngest cares enough about his father to tell the truth. The result is a huge fight with that son banished.
So have I done with my father. But in the end in Ran, the old king finds his youngest son and loves him so. I've had huge fights with my dad, given myself huge headaches where it would have been easier to just act like my sisters. Instead I've thought enough of him to act real with him. In the long run I'm the only person who he's got left that he feels really cares about him. I'm the only one who hasn't been meaningless with him. I'm the only friend he's got.
But then, he is my father. On the other hand there are so many people out there. 99.9% of them I'll have a short meaningless exchange with and nothing more. Being actually honest with them, bothering to disagree just has no point to it.
Generally speaking it's hopeless trying to be honest with people. And I must understand I'm going to go through my life with almost no one ever being honest with me.
Edit: I don't mean to make my stepfather sound like a bad person. He's essentially a man really trying to be good. He is not actually a selfish person. He cares about people very much. He's brought over 100 people from the third world to get college educations through a scholarship fund he created and runs (and donates a lot of money to from an ordinary professor salary). He's essentially a good guy who unfortunately has rightwing ideas ingrained in him. The father is the final authority on everything in his mind. And he made up his mind for good a few decades ago.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Sunday night after work while driving to my parents house for dinner I was in such a happy mood, probably mostly because I've about finished up another degree and will start a new job soon. (And will have more free time, less drudgery, more money). I'm driving to their house for dinner for mother's day and thinking I wanted to say a 'prayer' of thanks to the great sky fairy before eating, basically for the fact that here we all are still alive, having survived all these years with plenty of food and shelter. And that's about it. Happiness at mere survival.
I could spend a lot of my time like that. Jump in all the way to the mere survival game and believe it a good thing to enjoy whether I win or lose. But I really like to keep that sort of thing to a minimum. I prefer to think hard and be less happy.
This college program I've just finished up was quite annoying. Their goal is to pass a high percentage of people and then have a high percentage of those passed people manage to pass the RN exam to become certified nurses. So what they do is try to have the majority of people just barely passing for two years to keep them studying hard. They make sure a few people do fail. No matter what a few people have to fail to have that as a threat for all to keep studying hard.
A nice example is this very last test here, they don't want to fail anyone at the last moment, so they make the very last test a group test. We knew this because they just did it two months ago with the other section and two months previous with the section before... But they don't tell us this, they lie and say otherwise because they think we'll otherwise not study.
Instead of reason they've used force (fear, threats). The same as capitalism does in general. I remember in the military, where they don't fire people, they instead just scream and yell and constantly threaten to put people in jail for anything. It is annoying that this is how our society works. Force truimphs over reason the vast majority of time. Is it possible we could live on some other basis than merely surviving with such threats as being homeless, starving or in jail looming over us?
And of this degree, feh, I could learn everything I need to know and have passed the RN exam on my own with 3 months of study. Instead I've largely wasted yet another two years while constantly having the chop chop on my tail.
And this degree is one of the more practical and useful. My previous engineering degrees were far worse. And let's not even think about the public school system that came before. What a collossal waste of time. I could have just read William Golding's Lord of the Flies. (Well, OK, there's nothing like experiencing it first hand.)
And it all adds up to a ton of my life wasted. Flaming hoops for what? Mere survival. I'm arrogant enough to think I could have been doing something more useful than just surviving.
But now finally, hopefully, something more than merely surviving can soon begin. Now that my life is probably about halfway over.
(Not that anything other than merely surviving really exists.)
I could spend a lot of my time like that. Jump in all the way to the mere survival game and believe it a good thing to enjoy whether I win or lose. But I really like to keep that sort of thing to a minimum. I prefer to think hard and be less happy.
This college program I've just finished up was quite annoying. Their goal is to pass a high percentage of people and then have a high percentage of those passed people manage to pass the RN exam to become certified nurses. So what they do is try to have the majority of people just barely passing for two years to keep them studying hard. They make sure a few people do fail. No matter what a few people have to fail to have that as a threat for all to keep studying hard.
A nice example is this very last test here, they don't want to fail anyone at the last moment, so they make the very last test a group test. We knew this because they just did it two months ago with the other section and two months previous with the section before... But they don't tell us this, they lie and say otherwise because they think we'll otherwise not study.
Instead of reason they've used force (fear, threats). The same as capitalism does in general. I remember in the military, where they don't fire people, they instead just scream and yell and constantly threaten to put people in jail for anything. It is annoying that this is how our society works. Force truimphs over reason the vast majority of time. Is it possible we could live on some other basis than merely surviving with such threats as being homeless, starving or in jail looming over us?
And of this degree, feh, I could learn everything I need to know and have passed the RN exam on my own with 3 months of study. Instead I've largely wasted yet another two years while constantly having the chop chop on my tail.
And this degree is one of the more practical and useful. My previous engineering degrees were far worse. And let's not even think about the public school system that came before. What a collossal waste of time. I could have just read William Golding's Lord of the Flies. (Well, OK, there's nothing like experiencing it first hand.)
And it all adds up to a ton of my life wasted. Flaming hoops for what? Mere survival. I'm arrogant enough to think I could have been doing something more useful than just surviving.
But now finally, hopefully, something more than merely surviving can soon begin. Now that my life is probably about halfway over.
(Not that anything other than merely surviving really exists.)
Saturday, May 9, 2009
This idea of cultivating an imaginary muse/imaginary eyes. I wonder if the very concept of being sentient (being self aware) means having imaginary eyes. To be self aware there must be a something that is aware of a something. The one is you, the other is the imaginary eyes.
These eyes can be a very conscious thing that we pretend is a lover, friend, etc. Or among other things they can just be ourselves watching ourselves. In the latter it can be a very subconscious/unconscious process.
I wonder if this all can go too far and become schizophrenia. The imaginary eyes are really just us. The person with schizophrenic tendencies could start thinking it's actually someone else.
You can have a pretend conversation with yourself, with your imaginary eyes. But what if the imaginary you gets out of control. Starts acting on it's own. Or at least seems to be doing so. Then like one person who's got a couple of songs I really like and are linked to from this blog, your computer starts talking to you and you jump out the window.
These eyes can be a very conscious thing that we pretend is a lover, friend, etc. Or among other things they can just be ourselves watching ourselves. In the latter it can be a very subconscious/unconscious process.
I wonder if this all can go too far and become schizophrenia. The imaginary eyes are really just us. The person with schizophrenic tendencies could start thinking it's actually someone else.
You can have a pretend conversation with yourself, with your imaginary eyes. But what if the imaginary you gets out of control. Starts acting on it's own. Or at least seems to be doing so. Then like one person who's got a couple of songs I really like and are linked to from this blog, your computer starts talking to you and you jump out the window.
We focus on the negative because one punch in the face can matter more than a bunch of positives. But then worse, we scan for negatives. And scan and scan. We scan the past. But what is the past, what are memories? We're not skimming through the contents of a filing cabinent. We're trying to recreate past memories in order to review them. We're recreating past events in order to scan them for any negatives. So we recreate (remember) and rebuild and here and there we remake it wrong and the wrongly remembered event now has a negative in it and we focus on that negative.
But are we remembering it rightly or wrongly? Let's try again to recreate it. And again, and again. Is it right now? What if this negative really did happen? Then what? Let's now run through an endless number of possible responses to try to right this wrong. Constantly forgetting as we go and double back. Again, and again, and again.
Now scan elsewhere, etc.
We scan and scan and create negative things that didn't even happen. Persecute ourselves, bring about a constant state of fear concerning imagined wrongs we've committed.
Fear.
And fear, and fear. Eventually paralyzing you. You must find a way out.
"Life is short!" You're going to die anyway, so shrug off the fear and live life to the fullest. Throw caution to the wind. Take chances. Have fun!
Do stupid things. Act like an idiot.
In the face of what life otherwise is, just randomly do anomic things.
Everything that is wrong becomes unexpectedly wrong and thus funny.
The guy at the 'too far gone' facility going on about what a great man Hitler was, being lewd with women, endless racist jokes, endless neologisms, and puns. He pretended during his eval to be talking to someone on a submarine on the doctor's phone. Hilarious.
But then most days he won't talk, he won't eat, he won't come out of his room. Paralyzed by his endless mistakes and overtaken by fear.
But are we remembering it rightly or wrongly? Let's try again to recreate it. And again, and again. Is it right now? What if this negative really did happen? Then what? Let's now run through an endless number of possible responses to try to right this wrong. Constantly forgetting as we go and double back. Again, and again, and again.
Now scan elsewhere, etc.
We scan and scan and create negative things that didn't even happen. Persecute ourselves, bring about a constant state of fear concerning imagined wrongs we've committed.
Fear.
And fear, and fear. Eventually paralyzing you. You must find a way out.
"Life is short!" You're going to die anyway, so shrug off the fear and live life to the fullest. Throw caution to the wind. Take chances. Have fun!
Do stupid things. Act like an idiot.
In the face of what life otherwise is, just randomly do anomic things.
Everything that is wrong becomes unexpectedly wrong and thus funny.
The guy at the 'too far gone' facility going on about what a great man Hitler was, being lewd with women, endless racist jokes, endless neologisms, and puns. He pretended during his eval to be talking to someone on a submarine on the doctor's phone. Hilarious.
But then most days he won't talk, he won't eat, he won't come out of his room. Paralyzed by his endless mistakes and overtaken by fear.
http://thetoofarfuture.blogspot.com/2009/04/from-kurosawas-idiot-woman-tell-me-what.html
Seeing your coming death, realizing that life, no matter its length, is absurdly short, and thus living it to the 'fullest', such can help one overcome fear. Such a mental device can be used for good but can also be used for bad. It can be used to nonconform, which can be good or bad. It can be used to decide to take the idealistic route, which can be good or bad. It can be used to justify indifference. It can be used to refuse to follow mindless conformity.
But if you really take 'life is short' all the way, it just becomes an absurdity. I imagine the bubonic plague and people having orgies in the streets. Actually there is no amount of 'living it to the fullest' that will make it full enough in view of death.
Which would suggest that it's a mistake actually to 'live it to the fullest'.
Seeing your coming death, realizing that life, no matter its length, is absurdly short, and thus living it to the 'fullest', such can help one overcome fear. Such a mental device can be used for good but can also be used for bad. It can be used to nonconform, which can be good or bad. It can be used to decide to take the idealistic route, which can be good or bad. It can be used to justify indifference. It can be used to refuse to follow mindless conformity.
But if you really take 'life is short' all the way, it just becomes an absurdity. I imagine the bubonic plague and people having orgies in the streets. Actually there is no amount of 'living it to the fullest' that will make it full enough in view of death.
Which would suggest that it's a mistake actually to 'live it to the fullest'.
Friday, May 8, 2009
My anti-happiness it would seem is solely made up of fear and nihilism. But much more fear than nihilism. Nihilism is like boredom. The creativity killing thoughts are also the nihilistic thoughts.
Ultimately I prefer nihilism to fear. I happily kill the fear, kill the chop chop with the tick tock if possible.
This tick tock/chop chop or nihilism versus fear, the bouncing between the two, it is I think the same concept as being bipolar/manic depressive? Maybe. Maybe not.
Eh, possibly not at all. But then anti-happiness, is composed ...solely? of sadness, fear and nihilism(boredom). The depressive stage of the manic depressive generally consists of which? I was thinking it consists of fear actually. Paralyzing fear. Don't get out of bed fear. Occasionally this fear is overcome by boredom/nihilism/understanding of the shortness of pointlessness of life, etc and the person thus overcomes the fear and acts in irresponsible ways. Spends all their money etc, because what does it matter? They're just going to die. Might as well just act out. It may seem hardly a positive thing (nihilism) but compared to paralyzing fear it's not so bad.
Although this nihilism, etc most logically suggests that all movement is illogical, in reality not too many people decide to just quit moving because movement is illogical, more often this nihilism may be used to overcome fear and results in varying levels of mania. "nonconformed" behavior, etc. And of course when you decide that you're going to die anyway, that 'life is short' etc you then run off and do dangerous, unconformed things...
Most likely it's not so neat as that.
...but yes. Some people hide the fear they're feeling. The manic is the nihilist stage. Nihilism is just a bad word for it. It's the, "life is short, live it to the fullest while you can!" stage. It just happens that such a statement has an absurdity in it where if you really examing what you're saying you end up with nihilism. 'manic depressive/bipolar' is tick tock/chop chop. Life is short, live it to the fullest/some degree of fear.
Maybe with a more coherent understanding of this people could utilize the life is short concept, rein in it's excesses and use it to pull out of the fear.
The excesses are in part because when saying 'life is short' you're kind of thinking about your death. Becoming familar with it and not taking as much care to avoid it's eventuality.
...and then idealism versus pragmatism. I really think when faced with idealist versus pragmatist choices, if we decide that, "What the hell, life is short, I might as well stand up for what I really believe." then we're going the idealist route. So Obama could persecute the torturers. So Lincoln could have been outspoken against slavery from the beginning. So you refuse to descend into making compromises with morally bankrupt people. So, you're using 'life is short' to be an idealist and refuse to compromise...
you focus on your death and don't live in the actual world...
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The motivation for every action of humans is to increase 'happiness'. Where happiness is defined as the perception of moving away from death. Every single thing you do, reading, gluttony, friendship, accumlate money, sleep, love, have plants in your house, take drugs, work to make other people happy, even caring about animals that you'll never meet, every little thing.
Except sex? I dunno about sex. Will have to think about it. There is surviving and then there is the instinctual drive to reproduce. 'Instinctual drives' though are normally about mistaken perceptions.
Do 'instincts' exist at all? I ask yet again. We have our rational mind and then whatever else is up there is outside of our rational mind. For every action the rational mind is actually the origin. Nothing can be dismissed to the hypothalmus or amygdala, etc. ((Or can it?) OK your blood pressure increase because of something you ate as opposed to a flight of fight response...etc. But the former is not an 'action'.) The baby suckling 'instinct' is an action but it is not an instinct. It is based on an attempt at increasing happiness. I don't know how exactly. But I think it follows that it must be so. Claiming anything is instincts is somewhat like saying 'godidit'. Endless actions, possibly all, have an element of the unconscious. But none are 'instinctual'. All things originate in attempts at rational thought. All actions originate in attempts at increasing 'happiness'.
Are animals sentient or are their actions the result of 'instincts'? They are the result of attempts at rational thought where the illogical directions that still manage to produce beneficial actions get passed down through evolution. The originating attempt at rational thought may have nothing at all to do with the beneficial action. But there is conscious and unconscious in animals the same as human. They have the same parts. They have conscious thought just at a lower ratio of conscious to unconscious most likely and thus more illogical actions. Still the basis is attempts at rational thought to increase 'happiness'.
Bleh.
We act in order to increase 'happiness'. We are happy when we perceive that we are moving away from death, no matter how untrue it may be. We have interest in increasing other people's happiness because we perceive that their increased happiness increases our own.
Fear. The chop chop against the tick tock. A balance? Or the eradication of both?
Without fear there can still be nihilism. Getting rid of fear is not enough. Nihilism can conquer fear. Fear can conquer nihilism. One could spend a lifetime bouncing between the two...
But it's not an either or. There are other options.
There is actually personally moving away from death. There is helping others literally move away from death and thus having the perception (not necessarily remotely true) that this is causing yourself to also move away from it. These are the primary concerns.
(sigh) Then there is personally being 'happy' through perceptions that aren't necessarily true. But the most happiness comes from choosing actions that result in longer term perceptions of moving away from death. Gluttony, drugs, etc doesn't do so much. Plants in your house? Sure, why not. Friendships. Sure. Love. Yes. Things that aren't necessarily actually moving you away from death at all. Plants not so much. (They are symbolic of a world full of life. Straight to the unconscious, reduces fear, IOW, reduces concerns that you might be moving towards death.) Love and friendships potentially really are.
Making a world with more love and friendships in turn could greatly increase your own 'happiness'.
The opposite of happiness is fear and sadness and nihilism.
I feel fear and nihilism. Fear is the perception that you're moving towards death and you ought to be doing something about it but you don't know what. Nihilism is that there's nothing at all you can actually do to move away from death.
Sadness and crying go together. Crying is a greater degree of sadness. They are where you perceive you're moving towards death and you are asking for help from someone outside of yourself. Whether or not you rationally really are meaning to ask for help has nothing to do with it of course.
Anti-happiness is fear, sadness and nihilism.
Can one actually manage to cry when they're only asking for help (mostly unconsciously of course) from other people as opposed to help from god? Hard to believe it could be possible.
What does it all come down to? False perceptions that you're moving away from death. Bad choices. How to correct them? Just make people smarter. That's all. But of nihilism? Sometimes false perceptions are the best possible choice...
.....
I don't use emotions to ask for help I guess. Thus I never actually get sad. At least I don't think I ever feel sad. I know I don't cry unless it's a movie. My anti-happiness it would seem is solely made up of fear and nihilism. But much more fear than nihilism. Nihilism is like boredom. The creativity killing thoughts are also the nihilistic thoughts.
Ultimately I prefer nihilism to fear. I happily kill the fear, kill the chop chop with the tick tock if possible. (That is if I can't put a finger on what in the world is really causing the fear.) If I can, then of course I should just solve it or perceive that I have and thus feel happy.
Except sex? I dunno about sex. Will have to think about it. There is surviving and then there is the instinctual drive to reproduce. 'Instinctual drives' though are normally about mistaken perceptions.
Do 'instincts' exist at all? I ask yet again. We have our rational mind and then whatever else is up there is outside of our rational mind. For every action the rational mind is actually the origin. Nothing can be dismissed to the hypothalmus or amygdala, etc. ((Or can it?) OK your blood pressure increase because of something you ate as opposed to a flight of fight response...etc. But the former is not an 'action'.) The baby suckling 'instinct' is an action but it is not an instinct. It is based on an attempt at increasing happiness. I don't know how exactly. But I think it follows that it must be so. Claiming anything is instincts is somewhat like saying 'godidit'. Endless actions, possibly all, have an element of the unconscious. But none are 'instinctual'. All things originate in attempts at rational thought. All actions originate in attempts at increasing 'happiness'.
Are animals sentient or are their actions the result of 'instincts'? They are the result of attempts at rational thought where the illogical directions that still manage to produce beneficial actions get passed down through evolution. The originating attempt at rational thought may have nothing at all to do with the beneficial action. But there is conscious and unconscious in animals the same as human. They have the same parts. They have conscious thought just at a lower ratio of conscious to unconscious most likely and thus more illogical actions. Still the basis is attempts at rational thought to increase 'happiness'.
Bleh.
We act in order to increase 'happiness'. We are happy when we perceive that we are moving away from death, no matter how untrue it may be. We have interest in increasing other people's happiness because we perceive that their increased happiness increases our own.
Fear. The chop chop against the tick tock. A balance? Or the eradication of both?
Without fear there can still be nihilism. Getting rid of fear is not enough. Nihilism can conquer fear. Fear can conquer nihilism. One could spend a lifetime bouncing between the two...
But it's not an either or. There are other options.
There is actually personally moving away from death. There is helping others literally move away from death and thus having the perception (not necessarily remotely true) that this is causing yourself to also move away from it. These are the primary concerns.
(sigh) Then there is personally being 'happy' through perceptions that aren't necessarily true. But the most happiness comes from choosing actions that result in longer term perceptions of moving away from death. Gluttony, drugs, etc doesn't do so much. Plants in your house? Sure, why not. Friendships. Sure. Love. Yes. Things that aren't necessarily actually moving you away from death at all. Plants not so much. (They are symbolic of a world full of life. Straight to the unconscious, reduces fear, IOW, reduces concerns that you might be moving towards death.) Love and friendships potentially really are.
Making a world with more love and friendships in turn could greatly increase your own 'happiness'.
The opposite of happiness is fear and sadness and nihilism.
I feel fear and nihilism. Fear is the perception that you're moving towards death and you ought to be doing something about it but you don't know what. Nihilism is that there's nothing at all you can actually do to move away from death.
Sadness and crying go together. Crying is a greater degree of sadness. They are where you perceive you're moving towards death and you are asking for help from someone outside of yourself. Whether or not you rationally really are meaning to ask for help has nothing to do with it of course.
Anti-happiness is fear, sadness and nihilism.
Can one actually manage to cry when they're only asking for help (mostly unconsciously of course) from other people as opposed to help from god? Hard to believe it could be possible.
What does it all come down to? False perceptions that you're moving away from death. Bad choices. How to correct them? Just make people smarter. That's all. But of nihilism? Sometimes false perceptions are the best possible choice...
.....
I don't use emotions to ask for help I guess. Thus I never actually get sad. At least I don't think I ever feel sad. I know I don't cry unless it's a movie. My anti-happiness it would seem is solely made up of fear and nihilism. But much more fear than nihilism. Nihilism is like boredom. The creativity killing thoughts are also the nihilistic thoughts.
Ultimately I prefer nihilism to fear. I happily kill the fear, kill the chop chop with the tick tock if possible. (That is if I can't put a finger on what in the world is really causing the fear.) If I can, then of course I should just solve it or perceive that I have and thus feel happy.
About this blog
This blog was originally an experiment in creativity.
Personal experiments can be comically painful things. Not only in failing spectacularly but also in that it can end up appearing the experimenter must be a nutter, as they may be doing something other than just conforming.
I can conform quite well, but I recognize all too well when I'm just mindlessly conforming and as I look at the world it seems I'm correct in believing I should be questioning everything.
So this blog started as an experiment but is multiple things and slowly changes from day to day in terms of tone and level of conformity and what I'm experimenting with, etc. The original experiment had to do with something Milan Kundera mentioned: the concept of imaginary eyes. He claims that everyone has imaginary eyes upon them. He said you could be imagining the whole world, or a group of friends or your lover or, rarest of all, an imaginary person. You imagine these eyes are watching you. You can pretend to talk to them. They care about your life. They make you feel not so alone, etc.
Kundera didn't mention it but I wonder if some people's imaginary eyes are 'god'. I also wonder if all people actually have imaginary eyes. I've asked around and of course people claim they don't. But all of us hardly understand what's going on within us a good part of the time, so unfortunately all the time people will adamently claim things that aren't necessarily true. I think that most of us sometimes do and sometimes don't feel as if we have imaginary eyes on us. Not literally, not paranoid schizophrenia, but often just in terms of a separate part of us that is constantly reassessing our actions. But that often we hardly notice as being something separate. I think perhaps the ability to cry takes a belief, on some level, that someone is watching, someone is at least present who could potentially care; as crying is the form of unhappiness (sadness) where we are appealing for help.
This blog was originally, primarily, an attempt to cultivate the eyes of an imaginary person upon me whom even if I haphazardly write something down that isn't well explained, they'll understand and be interested in it. This as opposed to microsoft word where it at least used to be that I imagined I was utterly alone and who really cared? In the beginning this stifled my creativity. I needed to imagine someone was listening.
Why not just have real live people who actually are listening? Unfortunately one can rarely be totally honest then. And one has to constantly worry about being misunderstood.
So first and foremost that was the original point of this blog. Imaginary eyes or an imaginary muse to get my creativity going, to start actually producing something. With a long term goal of writing fiction, etc...
Secondly, or just the first point expressed somewhat differently, this is something to try to help me avoid writer's block and to just remember all the endless little more or less original things I've thought up. (Not necessarily anything that is truly original, but things that I reinvented I suppose.) I really like the labels/key terms function. It's nice to be able to scroll down through the words and quickly remember concepts and be able to click and immediately all the stuff I've written on such and such is compiled.
Thirdly this is a sort of diary. The idea of going through life and just forgetting pretty much everything I've thought and been bothers me. Forgetting is a sort of death. But I've never been able to keep a normal diary. I can never stand to go back and read what I've written in the past. Can never stand my previous stupidity and feeling so sorry for that unsuspecting person about to get blindsided by such and such future disasters... I find it works better here.
4. I can conform. I can act normal. I can be relatively happy in the real world. But I'm not ....much worried about doing such things here. Here I am purposely trying to find fault with society. Trying to figure out better ways to live, etc. Reinventing the metaphorical wheel. I am looking at unhappiness. I can be happy but I purposely try to spend much time focused on problems/unhappiness as a result of my ethical code.
The name of this blog, the too far future, refers to the most essential quality of humans in determining how they act, that being the degree to which they are short term or long term thinkers. The more long term you are, the more you 'waste' your time being altruistic, not turning away from unhappiness; the more time you spend thinking about things for which there probably won't be found any solution in your lifetime.
The picture at top was painted by Van Gogh two days before he killed himself. I think that if we truly and utterly break free of all conformity, truly and utterly quit finding ways to mentally frame things so that we'll feel happy, and instead look at the world 'objectively' it is really kind of awful. Understand though, that the understanding of this awfulness is not strong at all in my mind. Weak enough that at times I feel I really need to be reminded of it by doing things like posting Van Gogh's last painting.
Why oh why would I torture myself so?
Because someone ought to. Someone needs to check out that other barely discernible path. Maybe it leads somewhere better?
5. I leave the comments closed because I don't want my creativity stifled by having to worry about the endless obvious points I'm not having time or remembering to mention here. Again, I'm trying to be critical. I don't really need to worry about some person taking issue with my criticisms. This doesn't mean I'm a closeminded person. I love to be told I'm wrong but this here is the formative stage of creativity where criticisms get in the way. As time passes I may eventually post less and less often here (and get more into actual fiction writing) and then when I do bother to post it may be more well thought out and perhaps some day I'd even open up comments.
Also comments open would really wreck havoc on the whole imaginary eyes/muse concept.
6. People I communicate with who know of this blog,
Please, please don't assume what I write here has anything to do with you. In fact if I say something negative about some anonymous person in this blog, you can basically be certain it isn't about you. Even when I say negative things about any other people by the way, I always believe they can change, and although at times I've vented, in the real world there is no person I hate. None at all. I recognize we are all imperfect but all capable of change.
Also please, please don't think my reason for communicating with you is necessarily related at all to the purposes of this blog. Whatever communications I've done that have been tied (linked back) to this blog, have been just to be nice, etc. Me just following my ethical code and/or finding people I'd want to be friends with/see such as possible..., etc. (Or really wanting to ask a question and not having a better way to do it.) Although as far as making friends, I really think this blog would unfortunately scare off all but the most intelligent.
Personal experiments can be comically painful things. Not only in failing spectacularly but also in that it can end up appearing the experimenter must be a nutter, as they may be doing something other than just conforming.
I can conform quite well, but I recognize all too well when I'm just mindlessly conforming and as I look at the world it seems I'm correct in believing I should be questioning everything.
So this blog started as an experiment but is multiple things and slowly changes from day to day in terms of tone and level of conformity and what I'm experimenting with, etc. The original experiment had to do with something Milan Kundera mentioned: the concept of imaginary eyes. He claims that everyone has imaginary eyes upon them. He said you could be imagining the whole world, or a group of friends or your lover or, rarest of all, an imaginary person. You imagine these eyes are watching you. You can pretend to talk to them. They care about your life. They make you feel not so alone, etc.
Kundera didn't mention it but I wonder if some people's imaginary eyes are 'god'. I also wonder if all people actually have imaginary eyes. I've asked around and of course people claim they don't. But all of us hardly understand what's going on within us a good part of the time, so unfortunately all the time people will adamently claim things that aren't necessarily true. I think that most of us sometimes do and sometimes don't feel as if we have imaginary eyes on us. Not literally, not paranoid schizophrenia, but often just in terms of a separate part of us that is constantly reassessing our actions. But that often we hardly notice as being something separate. I think perhaps the ability to cry takes a belief, on some level, that someone is watching, someone is at least present who could potentially care; as crying is the form of unhappiness (sadness) where we are appealing for help.
This blog was originally, primarily, an attempt to cultivate the eyes of an imaginary person upon me whom even if I haphazardly write something down that isn't well explained, they'll understand and be interested in it. This as opposed to microsoft word where it at least used to be that I imagined I was utterly alone and who really cared? In the beginning this stifled my creativity. I needed to imagine someone was listening.
Why not just have real live people who actually are listening? Unfortunately one can rarely be totally honest then. And one has to constantly worry about being misunderstood.
So first and foremost that was the original point of this blog. Imaginary eyes or an imaginary muse to get my creativity going, to start actually producing something. With a long term goal of writing fiction, etc...
Secondly, or just the first point expressed somewhat differently, this is something to try to help me avoid writer's block and to just remember all the endless little more or less original things I've thought up. (Not necessarily anything that is truly original, but things that I reinvented I suppose.) I really like the labels/key terms function. It's nice to be able to scroll down through the words and quickly remember concepts and be able to click and immediately all the stuff I've written on such and such is compiled.
Thirdly this is a sort of diary. The idea of going through life and just forgetting pretty much everything I've thought and been bothers me. Forgetting is a sort of death. But I've never been able to keep a normal diary. I can never stand to go back and read what I've written in the past. Can never stand my previous stupidity and feeling so sorry for that unsuspecting person about to get blindsided by such and such future disasters... I find it works better here.
4. I can conform. I can act normal. I can be relatively happy in the real world. But I'm not ....much worried about doing such things here. Here I am purposely trying to find fault with society. Trying to figure out better ways to live, etc. Reinventing the metaphorical wheel. I am looking at unhappiness. I can be happy but I purposely try to spend much time focused on problems/unhappiness as a result of my ethical code.
The name of this blog, the too far future, refers to the most essential quality of humans in determining how they act, that being the degree to which they are short term or long term thinkers. The more long term you are, the more you 'waste' your time being altruistic, not turning away from unhappiness; the more time you spend thinking about things for which there probably won't be found any solution in your lifetime.
The picture at top was painted by Van Gogh two days before he killed himself. I think that if we truly and utterly break free of all conformity, truly and utterly quit finding ways to mentally frame things so that we'll feel happy, and instead look at the world 'objectively' it is really kind of awful. Understand though, that the understanding of this awfulness is not strong at all in my mind. Weak enough that at times I feel I really need to be reminded of it by doing things like posting Van Gogh's last painting.
Why oh why would I torture myself so?
Because someone ought to. Someone needs to check out that other barely discernible path. Maybe it leads somewhere better?
5. I leave the comments closed because I don't want my creativity stifled by having to worry about the endless obvious points I'm not having time or remembering to mention here. Again, I'm trying to be critical. I don't really need to worry about some person taking issue with my criticisms. This doesn't mean I'm a closeminded person. I love to be told I'm wrong but this here is the formative stage of creativity where criticisms get in the way. As time passes I may eventually post less and less often here (and get more into actual fiction writing) and then when I do bother to post it may be more well thought out and perhaps some day I'd even open up comments.
Also comments open would really wreck havoc on the whole imaginary eyes/muse concept.
6. People I communicate with who know of this blog,
Please, please don't assume what I write here has anything to do with you. In fact if I say something negative about some anonymous person in this blog, you can basically be certain it isn't about you. Even when I say negative things about any other people by the way, I always believe they can change, and although at times I've vented, in the real world there is no person I hate. None at all. I recognize we are all imperfect but all capable of change.
Also please, please don't think my reason for communicating with you is necessarily related at all to the purposes of this blog. Whatever communications I've done that have been tied (linked back) to this blog, have been just to be nice, etc. Me just following my ethical code and/or finding people I'd want to be friends with/see such as possible..., etc. (Or really wanting to ask a question and not having a better way to do it.) Although as far as making friends, I really think this blog would unfortunately scare off all but the most intelligent.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
There's a lot more smiling going on in dystopia/hell then in utopia/heaven.
What's the point in the huge smile I get from that old Chinese man when I buy food from him? Is it really that joyous an event? Is he really that happy to see me? I've bought food for a long time from him but never really had a meaningful conversation. Am I all that?
(1) Is he smiling at me because he's always so damm happy to see me? (2) Or is it because he's trying to say that he's not a threat to me? (3) Or is he trying to conjure a happier world for both of us to pretend we exist in instead of this one where he's just selling some chinese tofu and broccoli to some guy whom he's got no meaningful connection to nor ever will despite seeing him once or twice a week for a couple years now?
I'm obligated to smile back. But I don't want to. I don't want to pretend three with him. I prefer to see this world change instead of just pretending things are OK as they are. But then I don't want to do number 2 with him because I want to pretend I'm in a world where we don't have to continously verify that we're not any kind of threat to one another. I would like to not be continously mired in such savagry(sp).
But we are mired in such. Me not smiling in return could mean I'm a anti-chinese racist. It could mean I consider him just some lowly chinese food making servant. Someone I think so little of I can't give him a friendly smile. I'm supposed to smile. I fucking smile. Down here with the savages. Have a banana.
I want to pretend one thing. I want to pretend we're basically civilized. And that we don't need to act like buying the broccoli is such a joyous occasion.
He either wants affirmation that I'm not a savage (and I guess more importantly to show me (over and over and over again) that he also isn't) or he wants to pretend we're in some very strange utopia or he really is just that happy to sell me some broccoli.
-
When the chop chop (stress of life) gets bad, try thinking about the tick tock (how short and pointless your life is).
-
The first step in being an advocate for nonconformity is proving how good you are at conforming. This to show that your advocacy of the nonconformity isn't simply because you personally are incapable of conforming but that you simply think the conforming behavior is wrong. Unfortunately this means having to do exactly what you think is wrong. Or otherwise being dismissed as a nut.
And at what point do you get to then introduce the nonconformed idea? For most people you can conform for years on end and whenever you suggest something unconformed they will immediately dismiss you as nuts no matter all that came previously. Your chemicals have finally gone out of whack or what came before was all a lie.
(Not true)
What's the point in the huge smile I get from that old Chinese man when I buy food from him? Is it really that joyous an event? Is he really that happy to see me? I've bought food for a long time from him but never really had a meaningful conversation. Am I all that?
(1) Is he smiling at me because he's always so damm happy to see me? (2) Or is it because he's trying to say that he's not a threat to me? (3) Or is he trying to conjure a happier world for both of us to pretend we exist in instead of this one where he's just selling some chinese tofu and broccoli to some guy whom he's got no meaningful connection to nor ever will despite seeing him once or twice a week for a couple years now?
I'm obligated to smile back. But I don't want to. I don't want to pretend three with him. I prefer to see this world change instead of just pretending things are OK as they are. But then I don't want to do number 2 with him because I want to pretend I'm in a world where we don't have to continously verify that we're not any kind of threat to one another. I would like to not be continously mired in such savagry(sp).
But we are mired in such. Me not smiling in return could mean I'm a anti-chinese racist. It could mean I consider him just some lowly chinese food making servant. Someone I think so little of I can't give him a friendly smile. I'm supposed to smile. I fucking smile. Down here with the savages. Have a banana.
I want to pretend one thing. I want to pretend we're basically civilized. And that we don't need to act like buying the broccoli is such a joyous occasion.
He either wants affirmation that I'm not a savage (and I guess more importantly to show me (over and over and over again) that he also isn't) or he wants to pretend we're in some very strange utopia or he really is just that happy to sell me some broccoli.
-
When the chop chop (stress of life) gets bad, try thinking about the tick tock (how short and pointless your life is).
-
The first step in being an advocate for nonconformity is proving how good you are at conforming. This to show that your advocacy of the nonconformity isn't simply because you personally are incapable of conforming but that you simply think the conforming behavior is wrong. Unfortunately this means having to do exactly what you think is wrong. Or otherwise being dismissed as a nut.
And at what point do you get to then introduce the nonconformed idea? For most people you can conform for years on end and whenever you suggest something unconformed they will immediately dismiss you as nuts no matter all that came previously. Your chemicals have finally gone out of whack or what came before was all a lie.
(Not true)
It used to be that if I ate potato chips, etc I could literally feel myself gaining fat. It wasn't just in my head. It wasn't my imagination. I could simply literally feel it occurring.
In the same way, I could feel protein going to my muscles.
This was back when I was more seriously into lifting weights and eating healthy. This was also when I was into protein stuffing such as is the sad norm for most guys seriously into strength training. I remember when I became vegan that I noticed that soy really didn't work for me. It didn't go to my muscles. Lentils, beans, rice protein, etc did. (Nuts did but (I literally felt) were overwhelmed by the fat action.) But soy didn't. Additional soy led to a strange fatigue and overheating. Some kind of issue my body has with soy which doesn't seem to quite constitue a soy allergy... I guess.
Being able to literally feel junk food turning into fat on my body really reduced the enjoyment I could get out of eating junk food. I don't have that problem now. I've lost such sensitivities. Both concerning junk food and protein. Nowadays anyway I eat maybe 40 grams of protein at most in a day where before I ate 250 on average. And I do eat quite a bit more junk and I do weigh more and have a somewhat lower strength to bodyweight ratio, with a bit more bodyfat and I don't bother as much with weighting lifting.
As I don't feel the junk food turning into fat, I can enjoy eating it a lot more. I do need to ease up though. But still, I really did not enjoy being that sensitive to what my body was doing and I hope to never be that way again.
...I don't know if in general I have some kind of ability to sense myself more than is normal. Maybe.
I keep trying to look into my unconscious (eradicate it) and maybe I'm actually more capable than the norm of sensing what goes on 'there', or maybe I'm just abnormally introspective, at my most emotional moments still somewhat detached and watching myself...
This ability to look into the unconscious, much like literally sensing junk food turning into fat, has some extreme negatives. So much of creativity, for example, originates in the unconscious. Looking in 'there' and seeing the truth of it can so ruin it.
Colin Wilson's The Outsider which I'm currently reading, (and I have my doubts about a lot of what he's going on about) talks about as we move away from mere survival and into more abstract, etc thinking (stuff which is less directly related to survival) we can get a sense of 'unreality', we can become nihilistic. To some extent this is what has been going on with me. Except while I'm ultimately a lot less well read then Colin Wilson was at 24, I think I can talk more concretely about such things then him... The problem is actually wanting to bother doing so, (nihilism, such as he talks about.)
...I can feel my blood as it moves through my body. Certainly not all the time. But if I'm relaxed I can lay in bed and feel my pulse in most parts of my body. My feet, my hands, my head, definitely in my chest. Such isn't so unusual I suppose. It's just a question of degree. I'm pretty sure I feel it more than normal. Although as I've gained weight I think my senses have dulled. Thank God! Because this hypersensitivity has been mostly a negative thing. If nothing else feeling your blood pulse throughout your body makes sleeping difficult.
I don't know to what extent such things are an issue for other people. I know that when I have insomnia my pulse drives me nuts. It is I guess the CNS just too turned on... I guess. This weeks run... (it was a good run. Again I improved. Although this time I didn't actually run any faster (for the first time) but I went the same pace as last week while reducing my intensity back down to not breathing hard at all. And I went 22 minutes farther than last week (2:14). Shall now build up to 3 hour runs.)
But this run left me overheated. I can actually tell whether or not I'm going to have sleep troubles based on how hot my butt feels. If it's nice and cool (the usual) I sleep fine. It was hot. So I took two sleeping pills at 7pm and finally fell asleep at 10:30. So I laid there for quite a while feeling my heart. Absolutely impossible to sleep through it's pounding.
When I was about 8 they told me I had a serious heart defect and would have to have open heart surgery by 14 at the latest. That also I should avoid any physical activity. Hopefully the failing of the aortic valve would be gradual enough that they could do surgery first and hopefully surgery could wait till I was mostly physically mature. But there was a chance it could just totally fail at any moment and I'd just drop dead.
My eccentric stepfather decided we'd ignore their advice. And I was a very active kid. Extremely, abnormally active. Since very young exercising myself till exhaustion just because that was the sort of thing I liked to do.
And I did have chest pain. Sharp pains right over top of my heart. For more than 20 years I had sharp pains here and there while thinking I could drop dead at any moment. (As I write this I'm having a very slightly bit of 'pain' there for the first time in a long time. I think from the four 300 pounders I had to hoist around at the hospital Sunday. Or I hope that's what it is. I hope it's not from the running finally getting to me.)
And the doctors weren't completely wrong. Once while doing partial deadlifts with almost 700 pounds I felt something give in my chest. And then I was extremely fatigued for days afterwards. I finally went to the hospital and my troponin levels were elevated indicating I'd suffered a heart attack. I was admitted and spent a few days with nitro paste, etc on my chest. Then they just discharged me without explaining anything. Shortly after had a stress test where the doctor raved that I had the healthiest heart she had ever seen, no signs of any damage, the most hyperdynamic beating ability she had ever scene. Was I an olympic athlete or something?
But the sharp pains didn't quite seem right to be heart troubles. They corresponded to inhaling. At times they'd get so bad I'd have to just take tiny breaths for 30 minutes or so.
Finally a doctor pointed out that they couldn't have anything to do with my leaky heart valve, while she was showing that indeed I still do have moderate valve leakage. This went along with what I suspected as certain activities which caused a lot of stuff rubbing around in my chest cavity seemed to caused the chest pain to increase. The pains I'd had for 20 years were related to something rubbing/catching when I breathed, not my heart.
But for 20 years I've been worried I could drop dead at any moment. What effect has that had on me? How has that shaped me? I suspect it's played no role whatsoever. But I really don't know.
....In seeming to feel my body better than the norm, in examining my own sub/unconscious, I can't prove anything to anyone else. They can say I'm lying or a bit nuts. They can dismiss whatever I have to say. And, as far as the unconscious I really don't like what I think I've discovered. It is extremely nihilistic. (Next need to get HG Wells book that was dismissed as... nutty, etc.... Where it appears he was talking the same things. That movement at all is illogical, etc.)
...the hypersensitivity led me to conclude when I was 18 that without this physical body, without my mind's awareness of it, I would immediately become something entirely different then what I currently am. That so much of who I am is just a direct result of this mortal shell. And supposing I could exist beyond it, I wouldn't be me anymore at all. That what makes me me is this body. Without it I'm nothing but a speck of awareness. Exactly the same as any other speck of awareness. That speck of awareness without free will, my body serving as the computer program that exactly decided my actions, etc.
But I don't think of such things anymore.
In the same way, I could feel protein going to my muscles.
This was back when I was more seriously into lifting weights and eating healthy. This was also when I was into protein stuffing such as is the sad norm for most guys seriously into strength training. I remember when I became vegan that I noticed that soy really didn't work for me. It didn't go to my muscles. Lentils, beans, rice protein, etc did. (Nuts did but (I literally felt) were overwhelmed by the fat action.) But soy didn't. Additional soy led to a strange fatigue and overheating. Some kind of issue my body has with soy which doesn't seem to quite constitue a soy allergy... I guess.
Being able to literally feel junk food turning into fat on my body really reduced the enjoyment I could get out of eating junk food. I don't have that problem now. I've lost such sensitivities. Both concerning junk food and protein. Nowadays anyway I eat maybe 40 grams of protein at most in a day where before I ate 250 on average. And I do eat quite a bit more junk and I do weigh more and have a somewhat lower strength to bodyweight ratio, with a bit more bodyfat and I don't bother as much with weighting lifting.
As I don't feel the junk food turning into fat, I can enjoy eating it a lot more. I do need to ease up though. But still, I really did not enjoy being that sensitive to what my body was doing and I hope to never be that way again.
...I don't know if in general I have some kind of ability to sense myself more than is normal. Maybe.
I keep trying to look into my unconscious (eradicate it) and maybe I'm actually more capable than the norm of sensing what goes on 'there', or maybe I'm just abnormally introspective, at my most emotional moments still somewhat detached and watching myself...
This ability to look into the unconscious, much like literally sensing junk food turning into fat, has some extreme negatives. So much of creativity, for example, originates in the unconscious. Looking in 'there' and seeing the truth of it can so ruin it.
Colin Wilson's The Outsider which I'm currently reading, (and I have my doubts about a lot of what he's going on about) talks about as we move away from mere survival and into more abstract, etc thinking (stuff which is less directly related to survival) we can get a sense of 'unreality', we can become nihilistic. To some extent this is what has been going on with me. Except while I'm ultimately a lot less well read then Colin Wilson was at 24, I think I can talk more concretely about such things then him... The problem is actually wanting to bother doing so, (nihilism, such as he talks about.)
...I can feel my blood as it moves through my body. Certainly not all the time. But if I'm relaxed I can lay in bed and feel my pulse in most parts of my body. My feet, my hands, my head, definitely in my chest. Such isn't so unusual I suppose. It's just a question of degree. I'm pretty sure I feel it more than normal. Although as I've gained weight I think my senses have dulled. Thank God! Because this hypersensitivity has been mostly a negative thing. If nothing else feeling your blood pulse throughout your body makes sleeping difficult.
I don't know to what extent such things are an issue for other people. I know that when I have insomnia my pulse drives me nuts. It is I guess the CNS just too turned on... I guess. This weeks run... (it was a good run. Again I improved. Although this time I didn't actually run any faster (for the first time) but I went the same pace as last week while reducing my intensity back down to not breathing hard at all. And I went 22 minutes farther than last week (2:14). Shall now build up to 3 hour runs.)
But this run left me overheated. I can actually tell whether or not I'm going to have sleep troubles based on how hot my butt feels. If it's nice and cool (the usual) I sleep fine. It was hot. So I took two sleeping pills at 7pm and finally fell asleep at 10:30. So I laid there for quite a while feeling my heart. Absolutely impossible to sleep through it's pounding.
When I was about 8 they told me I had a serious heart defect and would have to have open heart surgery by 14 at the latest. That also I should avoid any physical activity. Hopefully the failing of the aortic valve would be gradual enough that they could do surgery first and hopefully surgery could wait till I was mostly physically mature. But there was a chance it could just totally fail at any moment and I'd just drop dead.
My eccentric stepfather decided we'd ignore their advice. And I was a very active kid. Extremely, abnormally active. Since very young exercising myself till exhaustion just because that was the sort of thing I liked to do.
And I did have chest pain. Sharp pains right over top of my heart. For more than 20 years I had sharp pains here and there while thinking I could drop dead at any moment. (As I write this I'm having a very slightly bit of 'pain' there for the first time in a long time. I think from the four 300 pounders I had to hoist around at the hospital Sunday. Or I hope that's what it is. I hope it's not from the running finally getting to me.)
And the doctors weren't completely wrong. Once while doing partial deadlifts with almost 700 pounds I felt something give in my chest. And then I was extremely fatigued for days afterwards. I finally went to the hospital and my troponin levels were elevated indicating I'd suffered a heart attack. I was admitted and spent a few days with nitro paste, etc on my chest. Then they just discharged me without explaining anything. Shortly after had a stress test where the doctor raved that I had the healthiest heart she had ever seen, no signs of any damage, the most hyperdynamic beating ability she had ever scene. Was I an olympic athlete or something?
But the sharp pains didn't quite seem right to be heart troubles. They corresponded to inhaling. At times they'd get so bad I'd have to just take tiny breaths for 30 minutes or so.
Finally a doctor pointed out that they couldn't have anything to do with my leaky heart valve, while she was showing that indeed I still do have moderate valve leakage. This went along with what I suspected as certain activities which caused a lot of stuff rubbing around in my chest cavity seemed to caused the chest pain to increase. The pains I'd had for 20 years were related to something rubbing/catching when I breathed, not my heart.
But for 20 years I've been worried I could drop dead at any moment. What effect has that had on me? How has that shaped me? I suspect it's played no role whatsoever. But I really don't know.
....In seeming to feel my body better than the norm, in examining my own sub/unconscious, I can't prove anything to anyone else. They can say I'm lying or a bit nuts. They can dismiss whatever I have to say. And, as far as the unconscious I really don't like what I think I've discovered. It is extremely nihilistic. (Next need to get HG Wells book that was dismissed as... nutty, etc.... Where it appears he was talking the same things. That movement at all is illogical, etc.)
...the hypersensitivity led me to conclude when I was 18 that without this physical body, without my mind's awareness of it, I would immediately become something entirely different then what I currently am. That so much of who I am is just a direct result of this mortal shell. And supposing I could exist beyond it, I wouldn't be me anymore at all. That what makes me me is this body. Without it I'm nothing but a speck of awareness. Exactly the same as any other speck of awareness. That speck of awareness without free will, my body serving as the computer program that exactly decided my actions, etc.
But I don't think of such things anymore.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Work can actually be kind of awful. And it's truly useful to practice the Fake Smile. It's good to pretend, I suppose when no other solution is going to happen anyway.
Very over worked today. For example supposed to check blood sugar before meals but too much work and they brought the trays early so some were checked during and after dinner. I spent hours just constantly moving. Eventually one forgets things. It just can't be helped. I had too many patients. And it's awful. Because this is life and death. This is a hospital. Some of these people are quite sick. One guy's intestine today was poking out through his colostomy hole. It reminded me of an uncircumsized penis.
Another guy was screaming bloody murder because his lithium levels were out of whack and they had him restrained. At the beginning of the day his screaming and threats made me feel a bit anxious. By the end of the day, it felt like the perfect background for the environment I was in.
The Fake Smile is the solution. Pass these women in the halls and flash that smile! Everything's juuuussst grrrrreat!
-
I'm dubious about people who work in university philosophy departments. Philosophy is a failure. So far. Like economics, ultimately I think. Economics is only allowed as long as it's supporting capitalism, more or less. That's what gets funded for the most part. Along the same lines philosophy that actually managed to start proving that the actions of the status quo were wrong... well we can't have that.
So, I don't know. To agree to be a part of all that, it seems could be a sort of conforming to a number of actions which aren't leading to the greatest possible good. OTOH, many philosophers consider themselves socialists and communists, etc.
-
...it seems to me the honest and unconformed thing to do would be to take stuff from your actual life and apply whatever philsophy you believe to it. I'm seeing a bunch of people who keep it fake instead. Who conform. Who aren't real. Who show no meaningful applications. Who are mired in defining words....
Zizek says philosophy isn't to answer questions but to pose better questions.
...which just means posing questions that can actually be answered and he isn't accomplishing that. Instead he's calling vegetarians degenerates. :eyeroll:
Very over worked today. For example supposed to check blood sugar before meals but too much work and they brought the trays early so some were checked during and after dinner. I spent hours just constantly moving. Eventually one forgets things. It just can't be helped. I had too many patients. And it's awful. Because this is life and death. This is a hospital. Some of these people are quite sick. One guy's intestine today was poking out through his colostomy hole. It reminded me of an uncircumsized penis.
Another guy was screaming bloody murder because his lithium levels were out of whack and they had him restrained. At the beginning of the day his screaming and threats made me feel a bit anxious. By the end of the day, it felt like the perfect background for the environment I was in.
The Fake Smile is the solution. Pass these women in the halls and flash that smile! Everything's juuuussst grrrrreat!
-
I'm dubious about people who work in university philosophy departments. Philosophy is a failure. So far. Like economics, ultimately I think. Economics is only allowed as long as it's supporting capitalism, more or less. That's what gets funded for the most part. Along the same lines philosophy that actually managed to start proving that the actions of the status quo were wrong... well we can't have that.
So, I don't know. To agree to be a part of all that, it seems could be a sort of conforming to a number of actions which aren't leading to the greatest possible good. OTOH, many philosophers consider themselves socialists and communists, etc.
-
...it seems to me the honest and unconformed thing to do would be to take stuff from your actual life and apply whatever philsophy you believe to it. I'm seeing a bunch of people who keep it fake instead. Who conform. Who aren't real. Who show no meaningful applications. Who are mired in defining words....
Zizek says philosophy isn't to answer questions but to pose better questions.
...which just means posing questions that can actually be answered and he isn't accomplishing that. Instead he's calling vegetarians degenerates. :eyeroll:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
