In terms of having an actually good memory and looking back on past unhappiness and being weighted down by it and thus wanting to compile happiness/happy memories in terms of thinking about the long term future, it isn't always the case that thinking about the long term means putting off "fun" while short termers instead focus on fun right now. The decision to have "meaningless" "fun" right now can be based on long term thinking. Some fun right now, to some extent, is indeed crucial to what one will be in the long term.

A: But you can't make the world a better place unless you are critical of it. You can't make it a better place unless you first identify the things that are wrong with it.

B: But you can by just immediately believing everything's basically fine.

A: That's an incredibly short sighted solution. It's what someone would do who didn't look very far into the future.

B: It's what a person would do who is capable of enjoying themselves right now. Those who can't have no real choice but to forever focus on some distant future that will never arrive.

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."

'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

The utopianist rejects the actual world and searches for a better one in part because he just can't enjoy this one. He focuses on long term thinking, on the too far future, because he can't enjoy the here and now. But it doesn't make his endeavors necessarily a waste of time. It doesn't make his product necessarily invalid.

Morality = potential long term self interest

On the face of it for most people morality is just a set of rules/laws they follow and if done well they feel pride that they're a good person. But these rules have a basis behind them. This basis can be described as mutual self interest or potential long term self interest.

In other words morality = self interset + altruism, where altruism is really just potential long term self interest. So the thing is that people have very different ideas about what is the proper length of the long term. A "true atheist" at 20 ought to have a different idea than one at 80. People who believe in some vague afterlife ought to have a different idea than people who don't.

The issue is that people say they believe one thing and show through their actions that actually they don't. Ethical vegans who claim to be atheists are one such glaring example. There is no self interest in not killing a chicken if you think you're just going to cease to exist upon death. It would take having a hugely long term scope of potential self interest to possibly give a whoop about a stupid chicken. And that is exactly what it is taking. Vegans don't what to be in a hell because that isn't a happy place. A place where we're killing other creatures mainly just because we easily can is such a hell. They feel it's in their self interest to not live in such a place and thus they don't kill the chickens. They do their tiny part... why was it again? It's like voting. Your own personal vote doesn't matter. Partially at least pride. The made a set of moral laws based on an extremely long term self interest and now are simply feeling pride to follow it. The original moral laws though were made in terms of thinking of the extreme long term.

And some people just aren't smart enough to think in such long terms.

I think, therefore I am.

To the extent you don't think, you aren't. You don't exist. These people who don't think in such long terms exist less. They are less alive. Which brings us back to the original point somewhat. Chickens exist less. They do matter less than humans. Still unnecessary in so many ways to kill them.

If nothing else, I haven't had a cold or flu in 5 years and deep kiss my wife while it appears she might have bronchitis.

Rambing ugly post which very much goes against all of what makes a "good blog post". But gimmicks and dishonesty aside, still has more meat than any blog post I've ever read or just about anything I've ever read period.

...ok well that's not quite true. Haha. I lost the train of thought at the end... Damm. Will try, try, try again later.

The definition of humor and happiness

Humor

Defined because it's good to understand ourselves.

What causes a person to laugh, what is humor?

The mind is constantly looking out for things that might go wrong. Constantly, constantly checking and rechecking. It's stressful.

And if something goes wrong which the mind recognized as potentially going wrong, well then, of course. The mind took this possibility into consideration. The mind understands that that sort of thing happens.

But here and there are things which the mind just was not thinking about. Bizarre things out of left field that catch it off guard. When such things go wrong the mind momentarily says, "But it never even occurred to me to think about That! This is just too much!" And the mind momentarily "gives up". And lets everything slide off. All stress momentarily slides off. And there is a moment of euphoria.

And we laugh. We give up and we laugh.

------

Happiness
The most essential thing to define. The impetus for all action, all everything. We must define Why we bother trying to do anything. Thus we must define happiness.

Quite simply it is the perception that we are moving away from death. And "death" can also mean nonexistance.

There are endless ways in which we can feel as if we are moving away from death. Tons of them are incorrect. Still, being incorrect that you are moving away from death won't make you any less happy in the short term.

Exposing yourself to lots of stimuli can simply give the feeling of being around lots of "existence". It makes you feel more alive.

Stuffing yourself of food can be such a stimuli. Escaping from reality can make it seem as if threats to your life are moving away, making friends can increase your "power" or that which helps you avoid death, getting someone to smile can be the same, the same with making money and/or hoarding money, feeling powerful one way or another, etc.

Even things like suicide can be seen as attemptedly logical acts to increase happiness. I won't bother explaining that one now though. Anyway, basically every act is performed as an attempt to increase 'happiness'.

But there is a long term and short term balance. How long will you exist? Will it really be forever? In some way you think it will, in some way you think it won't. To varying degrees depending on the scope of your mind. Etc.

Honesty

I think people generally are honest when it's positive but when it comes to all the negatives they hide what they really think. I'm way more honest than usual because I try (when I can, certainly not always) to be totally honest. In truth if everyone was being totally honest I'd appear an angel probably compared to most people. But since I'm pretty much the only person being so honest I'm thought of as rude, blunt, a "troublemaker", etc.

This is why I'm so honest:

Generally speaking the more you know, in the long term, the happier you should be. I've taken this too far, hence the title of this blog. I truthseek to a fault. I don't spend enough time just being silly, having a short term good time. The gears of long term truth seeking are always running in my head. And to share the positive and hide the negative is just so... unscientific. It's like doing a bunch of experiments and then tossing out the half of the results that didn't give you the answer you'd hoped for.

Such science would be pointless. And so with half the truth (whatever is negative) mostly hidden. The whole idea of truth seeking is chucked out the window. As a truth seeker (of course practicing the golden rule) you would either have to always be honest (with people you think you can afford to be so unassimilated to the social norms with) or you've got nothing.

The other side is not thinking so long term. Not truth seeking. Instead living for the short term. Just having a good time. Might as well hide the negative. This "anti-honesty" point of view is immensely nihilistic. It believes that people won't learn anything from the truth, that they won't come to any better understanding and instead will just fight. It believes that there are no truths worth understanding.

A short story could go like this:

Two men are the last living people on earth. They are scientists searching desperately for a way to clone, reproduce, somehow save the human race. They've been working a long time. They have one possibly final desperate experiment. The one scientist is especially getting old and sick. He thinks certainly this one should work. And if it doesn't it's over. That's it for the human race.

He falls ill and can't get to the lab to see the results. The other must tell him the results which were a failure. The other recognizes that finally it's no good to tell him the truth. He'll learn nothing that he can use in the future. It's time, finally, to live for the short term. To hide the negative. Finally the truth will hurt too much. And this person can do nothing good with it.

As a twist though, it could turn out that the dying scientist remembers some crucial thing that was done wrong. But with being lied to and told the experiment was a success doesn't bother to mention it as he dies and the race of man ends.

Anyway the result of my honesty is that I'm not as well liked as I'd otherwise be. It's highly ironic in a way because actually to be so damm honest I have to pretty much think like an angel. If one were to go inside the heads of people I associate with and compare it to my own, I wonder what the people who think so little of me would think then?

Maybe they know full well and still just don't care. As long as the ugliness which is in others is so much more hidden, so what? As long as there's a big smile and some silly thing to laugh about, what does it matter? There was never any intention to get very close anyway, so what does it matter?

It isn't just a matter of varying degrees of long term/short term thinking. It gets far more complicated.

It is also being optimistic enough to think a person can handle the truth.

It is also a matter of being incapable of just having a short term good time (being instead "zombiefied").

It is also a matter of not feeling vulnerable so that you're actually in a position to be so honest.

It is also the need to have more "meaningful" connections with people, to be closer emotionally with more people.

.....