"I'm not your bitch." (says Neil Gaiman concerning George Martin in effect flipping off his readers.)
"I'm not at your beck and call."
"I don't owe you anything."
"I have a right to enjoy my life."
Some people show a lack of consideration for others and when called on it, they respond with such. Turning things into absurdly crude white and black in order justify pure selfishness.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Morality and Myopia
...to the extent we can distract ourselves with little trifles, materialistic possesions and so on. To the extent one can be happy by constantly distracting themselves in such ways, that person can see more reason to be more totally selfish.
To the extent one loses their myopia and sees the bigger picture and sees how relatively meaningless yet another restaurant, another car, another outfit, etc, etc is, one has to turn elsewhere for meaning. And often here, is where people decide to be relatively altruistic instead. For whatever reason, many reasons perhaps.
To lose one's myopia often leads to being less selfish.
Just don't completely lose your myopia. As eventually all meaning is lost.
To the extent one loses their myopia and sees the bigger picture and sees how relatively meaningless yet another restaurant, another car, another outfit, etc, etc is, one has to turn elsewhere for meaning. And often here, is where people decide to be relatively altruistic instead. For whatever reason, many reasons perhaps.
To lose one's myopia often leads to being less selfish.
Just don't completely lose your myopia. As eventually all meaning is lost.
Monday, September 14, 2009
8 days without a blog post. (80 hour work week+my marine brother visiting for the first time in 5 years...) A record.... Reading Robin Hobb's Soldier Son trilogy and thinking about the need for people to focus on trying to please their 'over I' or super ego, or to have pride in following their own set ethical guidelines, or etc, instead of trying to please a parent, etc.
Thinking of how essential that is, that a person should question the authority of their parent (such Nevare's father early on wishes he would do...) and become something other than their follower. Neither a follower nor leader should anyone be. Except a leader of one's self. Trying to think upon how essential or not essential this is, to determining the moral character of a person...
Certainly in a dystopia questioning authority is crucial... If I ever have children, and it's looking very iffy... I do think this is something that will really stick with me. A child that still at 10, at 15... seems primarily concerned with pleasing me.... I would think that horrible.
I look at the people around me who have broken moral compasses... It is more complex. Hobb's world is simplified as most stories are. But this idea of having a strong authority figure whom you unquestioningly follow. Who's authority you obey. Whereby your only morality is to please them plays a role.
But comes a day where you become that new moral authority whom you think deserves to be obeyed without question. And your own ethical code is based on what? You who've spent your life trying to curry favor with whoever you perceived as having power over you... It would appear to be a morality based on power.
All that morality means is self interest with some long term forethought. Which is to say instead of just doing are own immediate short term self interest, we perform acts that appear to help the common good to our own detriment instead.
Those who believe in leaders and followers and believe their morality ultimately consists of doing what the leader says, actually do so because they understand that keeping in good favor with the leader is in their own best interest. It is a simple and practical short term thinking. The person who instead answers only to himself, to hell with the evil wishes of whoever has power over him, is actually practicing a much longer term self interest.
It is hard to explain. But within the difference between the two and so on. We have conflicts. Between the differences in moral codes we have the concept of evil and thus we have anger. As one person focuses on longer term good and sees another is ignoring it, they feel their is nothing for it then but force (and thus anger.) While another is focusing on short term good and sees another ignoring it and also feels there is then nothing for it but force (and thus anger). Etc.
So you spend your life trying to curry favor from whoever has power. You're practicing a relatively short term 'morality'. Then once you have power, what is your morality? What did you think their's before you was? Most likely you didn't really think much at all upon it. Mostly they weren't thinking. And neither are you. Following tradition is all. Whatever exactly you've decided to believe that tradition to be. Understanding your mind is like wandering through a mist. Coming here and there across a hodgepodge of somewhat random and contradictory beliefs. Glued together by short term self interest. And justified by a thinking which isn't aware of itself.
And I've no time.
Thinking of how essential that is, that a person should question the authority of their parent (such Nevare's father early on wishes he would do...) and become something other than their follower. Neither a follower nor leader should anyone be. Except a leader of one's self. Trying to think upon how essential or not essential this is, to determining the moral character of a person...
Certainly in a dystopia questioning authority is crucial... If I ever have children, and it's looking very iffy... I do think this is something that will really stick with me. A child that still at 10, at 15... seems primarily concerned with pleasing me.... I would think that horrible.
I look at the people around me who have broken moral compasses... It is more complex. Hobb's world is simplified as most stories are. But this idea of having a strong authority figure whom you unquestioningly follow. Who's authority you obey. Whereby your only morality is to please them plays a role.
But comes a day where you become that new moral authority whom you think deserves to be obeyed without question. And your own ethical code is based on what? You who've spent your life trying to curry favor with whoever you perceived as having power over you... It would appear to be a morality based on power.
All that morality means is self interest with some long term forethought. Which is to say instead of just doing are own immediate short term self interest, we perform acts that appear to help the common good to our own detriment instead.
Those who believe in leaders and followers and believe their morality ultimately consists of doing what the leader says, actually do so because they understand that keeping in good favor with the leader is in their own best interest. It is a simple and practical short term thinking. The person who instead answers only to himself, to hell with the evil wishes of whoever has power over him, is actually practicing a much longer term self interest.
It is hard to explain. But within the difference between the two and so on. We have conflicts. Between the differences in moral codes we have the concept of evil and thus we have anger. As one person focuses on longer term good and sees another is ignoring it, they feel their is nothing for it then but force (and thus anger.) While another is focusing on short term good and sees another ignoring it and also feels there is then nothing for it but force (and thus anger). Etc.
So you spend your life trying to curry favor from whoever has power. You're practicing a relatively short term 'morality'. Then once you have power, what is your morality? What did you think their's before you was? Most likely you didn't really think much at all upon it. Mostly they weren't thinking. And neither are you. Following tradition is all. Whatever exactly you've decided to believe that tradition to be. Understanding your mind is like wandering through a mist. Coming here and there across a hodgepodge of somewhat random and contradictory beliefs. Glued together by short term self interest. And justified by a thinking which isn't aware of itself.
And I've no time.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
I think I love work. People seem so good there.
Then on the other hand, I look in other places and people appear so awful.
I think it's because people are good as long as there's no danger in being good. But as soon as one thinks acting 'morally' might result in getting attacked, the good people get real scarce.
It does seem though that in order to take morality any distance at all, it means being strong enough to continue being moral despite getting attacked.
But in reality too much morality results in such people being less likely to successfully reproduce.
For example, if you thought christianity was resulting in people being treated badly, etc, and spoke out about it, there were a lot of times in history where they killed you. If you spoke out against the Nazis while living in Germany, you very well could have died.
Whenever you're in the minority, if you point out that the leaders, the people who are primarily establishing social norms, are wrong in some way, they're going to see you as a threat to their rule and possibly kill you. That's how it's been for humankind for all of history. Being 'moral', acting 'altruistically', was only acceptable provided it didn't go against the men with the power.
...And so, I love the people I work with at the hospital. Such essentially good people. I love going to work. Then I look... elsewhere. My god, such indifference as far as the eye can see. (And that's a long damm way thanks to the internet.) But it's no wonder at all that almost no one speaks out against the immoral actions of those with power. Throughout mankind's history doing so has almost always meant dying. And through killing such people, humans today are generally a lot more selfish and stupid then they'd otherwise be.
It is a sort of genocide.
"Moralicide"?
Still I love work. What a wonderful place. I hope to work as a nurse for decades. Even if I finally get that trust fund my stepfather first said I'd get then strangely denied having said (haha), still think I'd have to continue working there at least a few days a week. Just such a positive place. (Even with constantly being over worked and basically no patient ever truly getting quite the quality of care they should get.) Still, the work is so positive. The people are good.
And it's a damm good thing I love work because outside of work I keep not turning away from such ugly truths and it's tough to stand.
Then on the other hand, I look in other places and people appear so awful.
I think it's because people are good as long as there's no danger in being good. But as soon as one thinks acting 'morally' might result in getting attacked, the good people get real scarce.
It does seem though that in order to take morality any distance at all, it means being strong enough to continue being moral despite getting attacked.
But in reality too much morality results in such people being less likely to successfully reproduce.
For example, if you thought christianity was resulting in people being treated badly, etc, and spoke out about it, there were a lot of times in history where they killed you. If you spoke out against the Nazis while living in Germany, you very well could have died.
Whenever you're in the minority, if you point out that the leaders, the people who are primarily establishing social norms, are wrong in some way, they're going to see you as a threat to their rule and possibly kill you. That's how it's been for humankind for all of history. Being 'moral', acting 'altruistically', was only acceptable provided it didn't go against the men with the power.
...And so, I love the people I work with at the hospital. Such essentially good people. I love going to work. Then I look... elsewhere. My god, such indifference as far as the eye can see. (And that's a long damm way thanks to the internet.) But it's no wonder at all that almost no one speaks out against the immoral actions of those with power. Throughout mankind's history doing so has almost always meant dying. And through killing such people, humans today are generally a lot more selfish and stupid then they'd otherwise be.
It is a sort of genocide.
"Moralicide"?
Still I love work. What a wonderful place. I hope to work as a nurse for decades. Even if I finally get that trust fund my stepfather first said I'd get then strangely denied having said (haha), still think I'd have to continue working there at least a few days a week. Just such a positive place. (Even with constantly being over worked and basically no patient ever truly getting quite the quality of care they should get.) Still, the work is so positive. The people are good.
And it's a damm good thing I love work because outside of work I keep not turning away from such ugly truths and it's tough to stand.
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, February 26, 2009
My version of Camus' The Plague would be wild orgies in the streets as people really and truly attempted to live: Life is Short.
My wife said life is short to me last night. I spent years wasted in engineering school jumping through endless flaming hoops thinking, "Life is short. Life is short. LIFE IS SHORT!!!! Arrgggghhhhh!"
It is short and sometimes it's well and true and good to remember this. Other times it's a saying used to justify being a crap person. It becomes a question at times of having fun verus being moral. And my wife says, "there is an edge you can walk between the two."
The question, especially with regards to the moral outrage which at times consumes me, is: Where exactly is this edge? How do we determine where the edge is?
To answer we have to know just how short is it really? This life?
But we don't know the answer to that. What we end up doing, is deciding it's different lengths depending on the situation.
My 'The Plague' would take the Life is Short concept to where it is clear just how absurd a saying it actually is.
Camus' The Plague was instead a stodgy, stolid... boring story because he was attempting to write about a solution to The Absurd with a capital 'A'. His solution being something like the protestant work ethic without the protestantism. I don't agree with him.
More exactly his solution is a choosing of atheism and deciding to not bother thinking about a certain rather extremely important part of the future (your eventual nonexistence) as opposed to adopting mysticism, which would mean adding something to yourself (adding creativity, magic, etc).
He says you can't go the route of mysticism because then you've abandoned logic and made everything truly meaningless.
I think I don't agree. The reality is that it's not such an all or nothing venture. It is questions of degrees. Both with thinking to the future; of your eventual nonexistence. And going the route of mysticism; believing in an afterlife instead of beleiving this life is a futility.
The reality is that we all pretty much do a bit of both to varying degrees. (I think we are all being highly mystical in a number of ways that most atheist do not recognize as mystical.) I can not say that Camus is absolutely wrong. But my preference is to add (to myself) instead of subtract. I would rather add some magic to reduce The Absurd instead of just not thinking about The Absurd. Because I exist to the extent I think.
My wife said life is short to me last night. I spent years wasted in engineering school jumping through endless flaming hoops thinking, "Life is short. Life is short. LIFE IS SHORT!!!! Arrgggghhhhh!"
It is short and sometimes it's well and true and good to remember this. Other times it's a saying used to justify being a crap person. It becomes a question at times of having fun verus being moral. And my wife says, "there is an edge you can walk between the two."
The question, especially with regards to the moral outrage which at times consumes me, is: Where exactly is this edge? How do we determine where the edge is?
To answer we have to know just how short is it really? This life?
But we don't know the answer to that. What we end up doing, is deciding it's different lengths depending on the situation.
My 'The Plague' would take the Life is Short concept to where it is clear just how absurd a saying it actually is.
Camus' The Plague was instead a stodgy, stolid... boring story because he was attempting to write about a solution to The Absurd with a capital 'A'. His solution being something like the protestant work ethic without the protestantism. I don't agree with him.
More exactly his solution is a choosing of atheism and deciding to not bother thinking about a certain rather extremely important part of the future (your eventual nonexistence) as opposed to adopting mysticism, which would mean adding something to yourself (adding creativity, magic, etc).
He says you can't go the route of mysticism because then you've abandoned logic and made everything truly meaningless.
I think I don't agree. The reality is that it's not such an all or nothing venture. It is questions of degrees. Both with thinking to the future; of your eventual nonexistence. And going the route of mysticism; believing in an afterlife instead of beleiving this life is a futility.
The reality is that we all pretty much do a bit of both to varying degrees. (I think we are all being highly mystical in a number of ways that most atheist do not recognize as mystical.) I can not say that Camus is absolutely wrong. But my preference is to add (to myself) instead of subtract. I would rather add some magic to reduce The Absurd instead of just not thinking about The Absurd. Because I exist to the extent I think.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Morality versus Fun
Walking down the road. On the left is a slaughter house. Not only can you hear the screams, you can see stuff going on if you look in the windows. On the right is a restaurant with an outside section; people are out eating their dinners and having a great time. Music is playing loud enough to drown out the screams. The people are laughing and facing away from the left.
This life is short. One must focus on the positives. And the ham is succulent today.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
One more time, but with feeling!
I listen with microphones and a 20 pound mini puma from thighs to ear adding his loud purrs to the music.
Holding a cat is like holding a sophisticated amoeba. It's like holding a piece of our roots; remembering the animals that to a large extent we still are. This one acts as if he's got siamese in him. But I bred him because his dad was so smart. (Yes, I know the proper vegan stance on breeding but among other things (don't entirely agree with it) I wasn't vegan back then.) I picked out his dad from a litter because he sat there looking so intelligent. It is an ability we have from an evolutionary standpoint to be able to see to some extent what people are and this cat looked so smart. And most certainly one can (or at least I can) look at an animal and tell about how smart they are. I guess (apparently) not everyone is as good at this. I love to do it. Seeing and contemplating the intelligence in the eyes of animals gives me a strange thrill. Why? (The mystery? Love of intelligence. Love of our animal roots, etc.)
This one (Loki) is so talkative and loving. Loki loves his cat tv (bird feeders) and tries to talk to the birds just like his dad did. He loves hard and then leaves you alone.
I love how he and his mom and sister remind me of our distant roots. But I hate that they're carnivores. Vegan cat food just isn't perfected yet. As of now cats do need meat to survive.
I've chased chickens around a coop to be slaughtered. They know to run. I remember clearly looking a caught chicken in the eyes. It was afraid. That's enough to know. Cows and pigs much more so than chickens. They have personalities. They feel pain.
I think about what I'm doing when I eat. The less you think, the less you exist. I ate meat for 30 years ridiculously thinking it was necessary for good health and that whole time I felt a little disgusted with myself. I know full well what it is to be a meat eater. It's about not thinking. The key to it is to be oblivious, to be stupid, to simply have a big blank spot where your understanding would be. And that blank spot is more disgusting and revolting than the corpses touching your lips. When I realized I didn't need to eat meat or boob juice or chicken periods I was so happy. There was no, "Gee, this might be hard, better make it a gradual process." The process was instant and permanent. (Well except for a bit of boob juice here and there in chocolate etc as being 'pure' would be a pain in the ass where I live.)
It is still the most happiest thing in my life. I don't have to kill anyone (well OK bugs here and there incidentally, etc) in order to continue living myself. How wonderful. How awful when I thought otherwise. I literally had the anguish as in the Anne Rice vampire books.
But still I must turn a piece of my mind off too; as I don't know a single vegan in my real world. So focusing on just how empty people's minds are would just be torturous; especially when they see me, when they see that not only do I not look like I'm about to keel over but that I most likely could kick their ass with one arm tied behind my back. Like politics, it is ultimately beyond the pale.
In politics you can be shocked and morally outraged over and over and over again and eventually, what are you accomplishing?
What makes a Chomsky continue on?
Morals are ultimately utilitarian/consequentialist in nature. IMO they are self interest with some degree of long term forethought. We attempt to predict the future. We attempt to foresee the consequences and on that basis we decide the most moral action. But then of course it's impossible to actually predict the future. The biggest problem of all is knowing how much future there will be. Furthermore actually calculating the most moral action could be very complex from day to day so although the basis of our moral codes are consequentialist, in our day to day living we end up following what looks more like an absolute code.
And with respect to this absolute code, when we 'do the right thing' we can then feel pride with ourselves for having done so. We can feel good about ourselves. We can feel that we've played the game well.
Someone like Chomsky must feel such pride in himself. And so he just keeps repeating the same stuff over and over again. Not much has actually been accomplished but as he sees it, there's not much else he can do.
If I were prominent as political gadfly like Chomsky perhaps I'd do the same. But some of these other people with their little leftist blogs which I skim here and there. It's harder to see what keeps them going. What keeps them so shocked and all. At some point I would think they ought to stray back to consequentialism... instead of being 'deontologial'. All that being shocked isn't changing anything. People keep on treating each other with the same indifference as they do to animals.
Keeping it deontoligical I guess you can continue to feel pride for 'doing the right thing'. Step out to the bigger consequentialist picture and the only reason left I can think of is just feeling pride about being erudite and knowledgeable.
Neither does much for me. But although I'm curious why they bother and don't do so myself and thus (obviously) think it wrong (but not closemindedly), I'm still glad someone is. Personally talking about imperialism in whatever it's guise has become beyond the pale to me though, for the most part.
Beyond the pale in the sense of being a moral outrage overload I suppose. I prefer to be morally outraged about things that aren't so obvious. Because with being less obvious you can at least entertain the hope that people just haven't yet understood it, and once they do, then instead of the indifference they've shown with veganism and politics (veganism just straight up indifference for the vast majority and for politics, too indifferent to ever go beyond the TV and other media owned by the billionaires to hear a different point of view) then maybe (not!) they'd actually change.
I listen with microphones and a 20 pound mini puma from thighs to ear adding his loud purrs to the music.
Holding a cat is like holding a sophisticated amoeba. It's like holding a piece of our roots; remembering the animals that to a large extent we still are. This one acts as if he's got siamese in him. But I bred him because his dad was so smart. (Yes, I know the proper vegan stance on breeding but among other things (don't entirely agree with it) I wasn't vegan back then.) I picked out his dad from a litter because he sat there looking so intelligent. It is an ability we have from an evolutionary standpoint to be able to see to some extent what people are and this cat looked so smart. And most certainly one can (or at least I can) look at an animal and tell about how smart they are. I guess (apparently) not everyone is as good at this. I love to do it. Seeing and contemplating the intelligence in the eyes of animals gives me a strange thrill. Why? (The mystery? Love of intelligence. Love of our animal roots, etc.)
This one (Loki) is so talkative and loving. Loki loves his cat tv (bird feeders) and tries to talk to the birds just like his dad did. He loves hard and then leaves you alone.
I love how he and his mom and sister remind me of our distant roots. But I hate that they're carnivores. Vegan cat food just isn't perfected yet. As of now cats do need meat to survive.
I've chased chickens around a coop to be slaughtered. They know to run. I remember clearly looking a caught chicken in the eyes. It was afraid. That's enough to know. Cows and pigs much more so than chickens. They have personalities. They feel pain.
I think about what I'm doing when I eat. The less you think, the less you exist. I ate meat for 30 years ridiculously thinking it was necessary for good health and that whole time I felt a little disgusted with myself. I know full well what it is to be a meat eater. It's about not thinking. The key to it is to be oblivious, to be stupid, to simply have a big blank spot where your understanding would be. And that blank spot is more disgusting and revolting than the corpses touching your lips. When I realized I didn't need to eat meat or boob juice or chicken periods I was so happy. There was no, "Gee, this might be hard, better make it a gradual process." The process was instant and permanent. (Well except for a bit of boob juice here and there in chocolate etc as being 'pure' would be a pain in the ass where I live.)
It is still the most happiest thing in my life. I don't have to kill anyone (well OK bugs here and there incidentally, etc) in order to continue living myself. How wonderful. How awful when I thought otherwise. I literally had the anguish as in the Anne Rice vampire books.
But still I must turn a piece of my mind off too; as I don't know a single vegan in my real world. So focusing on just how empty people's minds are would just be torturous; especially when they see me, when they see that not only do I not look like I'm about to keel over but that I most likely could kick their ass with one arm tied behind my back. Like politics, it is ultimately beyond the pale.
In politics you can be shocked and morally outraged over and over and over again and eventually, what are you accomplishing?
What makes a Chomsky continue on?
Morals are ultimately utilitarian/consequentialist in nature. IMO they are self interest with some degree of long term forethought. We attempt to predict the future. We attempt to foresee the consequences and on that basis we decide the most moral action. But then of course it's impossible to actually predict the future. The biggest problem of all is knowing how much future there will be. Furthermore actually calculating the most moral action could be very complex from day to day so although the basis of our moral codes are consequentialist, in our day to day living we end up following what looks more like an absolute code.
And with respect to this absolute code, when we 'do the right thing' we can then feel pride with ourselves for having done so. We can feel good about ourselves. We can feel that we've played the game well.
Someone like Chomsky must feel such pride in himself. And so he just keeps repeating the same stuff over and over again. Not much has actually been accomplished but as he sees it, there's not much else he can do.
If I were prominent as political gadfly like Chomsky perhaps I'd do the same. But some of these other people with their little leftist blogs which I skim here and there. It's harder to see what keeps them going. What keeps them so shocked and all. At some point I would think they ought to stray back to consequentialism... instead of being 'deontologial'. All that being shocked isn't changing anything. People keep on treating each other with the same indifference as they do to animals.
Keeping it deontoligical I guess you can continue to feel pride for 'doing the right thing'. Step out to the bigger consequentialist picture and the only reason left I can think of is just feeling pride about being erudite and knowledgeable.
Neither does much for me. But although I'm curious why they bother and don't do so myself and thus (obviously) think it wrong (but not closemindedly), I'm still glad someone is. Personally talking about imperialism in whatever it's guise has become beyond the pale to me though, for the most part.
Beyond the pale in the sense of being a moral outrage overload I suppose. I prefer to be morally outraged about things that aren't so obvious. Because with being less obvious you can at least entertain the hope that people just haven't yet understood it, and once they do, then instead of the indifference they've shown with veganism and politics (veganism just straight up indifference for the vast majority and for politics, too indifferent to ever go beyond the TV and other media owned by the billionaires to hear a different point of view) then maybe (not!) they'd actually change.
As to the last it's not necessarily true about the evil god being the cause of current anxiety. But it sounds neat.
It is an anxiety loop with the amygdala getting continously tweaked that unfortunately gets going in so many people eventually I think, perhaps. It might be related to "refusing" to the play The Game. This because just look at history, endless absurdities/atrocities; refusing to take part in The Game is a matter of morals.
But actually you're stuck playing it whether you like it or not, so it's a matter of just playing it well or very badly. If you accept The Game, I think you can probably handle the potentially anxiety causing stuff much, much better along with being far more likely to be wealthy and "successful".
And then what one can do is play it well right up to the point of seemingly "winning" and then stopping just short of the finish line... for some reason. What reason? You stop running right before you've "won" and find it so so hard to take another stride forward. Is it morals? Is it the "evil god"?
I reminded of Poe's The Scyth of Time; his manservant not being able to take the last step to the top floor of the clock tower. I was less conscious last I read that story. My interpretation back then though was similar to the above.
It is an anxiety loop with the amygdala getting continously tweaked that unfortunately gets going in so many people eventually I think, perhaps. It might be related to "refusing" to the play The Game. This because just look at history, endless absurdities/atrocities; refusing to take part in The Game is a matter of morals.
But actually you're stuck playing it whether you like it or not, so it's a matter of just playing it well or very badly. If you accept The Game, I think you can probably handle the potentially anxiety causing stuff much, much better along with being far more likely to be wealthy and "successful".
And then what one can do is play it well right up to the point of seemingly "winning" and then stopping just short of the finish line... for some reason. What reason? You stop running right before you've "won" and find it so so hard to take another stride forward. Is it morals? Is it the "evil god"?
I reminded of Poe's The Scyth of Time; his manservant not being able to take the last step to the top floor of the clock tower. I was less conscious last I read that story. My interpretation back then though was similar to the above.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The lie of ethics
When typical atheists try to logically explain moral actions in practice all they're talking of really is self interest. Ask them about the ethicality of veganism and it turns out that morality is really just a nice word for self interst.
When you ask a christian about how one determines if an action is moral, it's just a matter of doing as one is told (along with interpreting what one has been told...)
It is a lie for such atheists to use words like ethics and morality. The christian can at least use such words, although they can't back it up with a very good reason why.
It looks like that old ugly idea that atheists are evil, which isn't actually the case at all. Because actually they do moral actions (not in their self interest) all the time. Because actually they don't truly act like atheists. In fact it's not actually possible to live like an atheist.
In fact they are more moral generally than christians as they are open more to the questioning of ugly traditions generally. And whether or not they are vegan they do act in ways that are outside of their self interest... occasionally. But whenever they do so they are going outside of atheism. They are not living as an atheist. But then when they get out of bed in the morning they've already ruined that.
...but that wasn't the point. The point was the lie. Christian ethics can't be taken very seriously. That leaves these attempts at logic which reduce to self interest yet are called ethics. It is a lie upon which our society sort of wobbles... Wobbles as although that's about the best people can manage to express/argue about, there is something very real other than that which is going on, which is making us act in ways that cannot be brought back to self interest or "god said so".
But it is such a hazy, fuzy, haphazard thing which is going on; a thing that these people can't express, s that of course we mostly do just act in our own self interest. A very short term self interest.
When you ask a christian about how one determines if an action is moral, it's just a matter of doing as one is told (along with interpreting what one has been told...)
It is a lie for such atheists to use words like ethics and morality. The christian can at least use such words, although they can't back it up with a very good reason why.
It looks like that old ugly idea that atheists are evil, which isn't actually the case at all. Because actually they do moral actions (not in their self interest) all the time. Because actually they don't truly act like atheists. In fact it's not actually possible to live like an atheist.
In fact they are more moral generally than christians as they are open more to the questioning of ugly traditions generally. And whether or not they are vegan they do act in ways that are outside of their self interest... occasionally. But whenever they do so they are going outside of atheism. They are not living as an atheist. But then when they get out of bed in the morning they've already ruined that.
...but that wasn't the point. The point was the lie. Christian ethics can't be taken very seriously. That leaves these attempts at logic which reduce to self interest yet are called ethics. It is a lie upon which our society sort of wobbles... Wobbles as although that's about the best people can manage to express/argue about, there is something very real other than that which is going on, which is making us act in ways that cannot be brought back to self interest or "god said so".
But it is such a hazy, fuzy, haphazard thing which is going on; a thing that these people can't express, s that of course we mostly do just act in our own self interest. A very short term self interest.
Friday, September 5, 2008
What would it take to determine the correct degree selfishness versus selflessness?
Will work on the answer. Being able to predict the future (especially beyond death) seems the main thing.
Why am I really vegan?
Is it because:
To me there is no such thing as not acting in one's own self interest. I don't really believe in the existence of altruism. Yet I definitely act in a manner that appears more altruistic than average. I do so because I see farther into a possible future. And the farther one goes into some undermined hazy future, the more selfish reasons there are to care about the happiness of other beings.
Of course if the people around us are happy, that generally increases our own happiness provided they aren't people who get happy by hurting others.
I live as if I'll live forever in some form. Over such a long term unknown scope, there becomes more reason to just go ahead and keep others happy.
What if when we die we return to some collective conscious along with all other creatures? What if we still to some extent have our indivduality while at the same time being connected with all these others. We kill a massive number of animals for food, what if they aren't real happy about that and harbor a grudge against us into the afterlife while being psychicly(sp) connected to us?
Silly but well, I don't know. And it's easy to be vegan. So this seemingly altruistic act is really not necessarily altruistic.
Or is it just empathy? Just that I try to understand the point of view of others. And thus I literally feel their pain to an extent and simply can't stand then to cause them pain? Is that it? Something so straightforward, not quite so silly.
Is it pride? That I've identified certain behaviors as monsterous and decided I will not act in certain ways simply because I want to play this Game well?
Will work on the answer. Being able to predict the future (especially beyond death) seems the main thing.
Why am I really vegan?
Is it because:
To me there is no such thing as not acting in one's own self interest. I don't really believe in the existence of altruism. Yet I definitely act in a manner that appears more altruistic than average. I do so because I see farther into a possible future. And the farther one goes into some undermined hazy future, the more selfish reasons there are to care about the happiness of other beings.
Of course if the people around us are happy, that generally increases our own happiness provided they aren't people who get happy by hurting others.
I live as if I'll live forever in some form. Over such a long term unknown scope, there becomes more reason to just go ahead and keep others happy.
What if when we die we return to some collective conscious along with all other creatures? What if we still to some extent have our indivduality while at the same time being connected with all these others. We kill a massive number of animals for food, what if they aren't real happy about that and harbor a grudge against us into the afterlife while being psychicly(sp) connected to us?
Silly but well, I don't know. And it's easy to be vegan. So this seemingly altruistic act is really not necessarily altruistic.
Or is it just empathy? Just that I try to understand the point of view of others. And thus I literally feel their pain to an extent and simply can't stand then to cause them pain? Is that it? Something so straightforward, not quite so silly.
Is it pride? That I've identified certain behaviors as monsterous and decided I will not act in certain ways simply because I want to play this Game well?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Listing the ways in which mankind is dysfunctional
blah, blah, blah!
1. Conformity
Like with the Soloman Asch experiment. But for a whole group to ever get to a point where individuals feel forced to conform (or too lazy to just think) there has to be other things going on.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html
2. Indifference
People don't hate chickens, they're just utterly indifferent to them. A person can even be a sadist, a serial murderer; and ultimately the essential reason is because of their indifference to the suffering of others.
3. Misperceiving indifference in others
This is also often called hate. People usually bring it down to hate and indifference. But I'll get to that in a second.
There was an old twilight zone episode that demonstarted it sort ot:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xIVIOPL1Vf4
If you just suspect that surely someone is actually "evil" (indifferent to the suffering they're causing) then that alone can ruin everything.
4. Force over Reason
When we perceive people as causing unnecessary harm and just not caring we think of them as being evil, and feel that it is useless to reason with them. When we think of them as "evil" we get angry, we feel hate and we turn to force.
We should try to stay with reason much more than we do instead of resorting to force, especially if we are actually misperceiving "evil" or indifference to suffering.
5. Too much faith/religion
I don't think having faith in a "god" has to be a bad thing. I don't think believing in a life after death has to be a bad thing at all. But people take it way too far and start having faith in all kinds of crap. They believe in heaven and wait for that instead of trying to make this world a good place. Most importantly they just in general get away from thinking and instead prefer to just believe whatever they happen to want to believe and this leads to believing all kinds of things which are harmful and also gets people away from even questioning if something they believe might be causing harm.
....
One can go inside the major reasons... So much can fit under conforming.....
6. The fear of being perceived as gay + hating gay people
Of course persecuting this minority sucks but it hurts the majority I think pretty majorly actually in that it keeps men cold. It keeps them afraid to express their emotions and have close relationships with other men, lest they be perceived as gay. It keeps people isolated ultimately. This is the result of conforming/religion and some indifference I suppose and if it's got conforming and religion it's using plenty of force over reason.
7. Monogamy/Jealousy?
Causes isolation. Less meaningful connections. Less love obviously.
8. Capitalism
Unregulated capitalism is insane. Communities have to care about the people in their communities. Otherwise they're not communities. People aren't allowed to go around beating the crap out of one another just because some people are stronger or because they may happen to get lucky in a fight. In the same way you can't have people getting economically destroyed just because they're not as smart or didn't get as lucky economically.
If people are free to beat the shit out of one another, it's not a community. And if people are living under the bridge, living without health care, etc it's not a community.
1. Conformity
Like with the Soloman Asch experiment. But for a whole group to ever get to a point where individuals feel forced to conform (or too lazy to just think) there has to be other things going on.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html
2. Indifference
People don't hate chickens, they're just utterly indifferent to them. A person can even be a sadist, a serial murderer; and ultimately the essential reason is because of their indifference to the suffering of others.
3. Misperceiving indifference in others
This is also often called hate. People usually bring it down to hate and indifference. But I'll get to that in a second.
There was an old twilight zone episode that demonstarted it sort ot:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xIVIOPL1Vf4
If you just suspect that surely someone is actually "evil" (indifferent to the suffering they're causing) then that alone can ruin everything.
4. Force over Reason
When we perceive people as causing unnecessary harm and just not caring we think of them as being evil, and feel that it is useless to reason with them. When we think of them as "evil" we get angry, we feel hate and we turn to force.
We should try to stay with reason much more than we do instead of resorting to force, especially if we are actually misperceiving "evil" or indifference to suffering.
5. Too much faith/religion
I don't think having faith in a "god" has to be a bad thing. I don't think believing in a life after death has to be a bad thing at all. But people take it way too far and start having faith in all kinds of crap. They believe in heaven and wait for that instead of trying to make this world a good place. Most importantly they just in general get away from thinking and instead prefer to just believe whatever they happen to want to believe and this leads to believing all kinds of things which are harmful and also gets people away from even questioning if something they believe might be causing harm.
....
One can go inside the major reasons... So much can fit under conforming.....
6. The fear of being perceived as gay + hating gay people
Of course persecuting this minority sucks but it hurts the majority I think pretty majorly actually in that it keeps men cold. It keeps them afraid to express their emotions and have close relationships with other men, lest they be perceived as gay. It keeps people isolated ultimately. This is the result of conforming/religion and some indifference I suppose and if it's got conforming and religion it's using plenty of force over reason.
7. Monogamy/Jealousy?
Causes isolation. Less meaningful connections. Less love obviously.
8. Capitalism
Unregulated capitalism is insane. Communities have to care about the people in their communities. Otherwise they're not communities. People aren't allowed to go around beating the crap out of one another just because some people are stronger or because they may happen to get lucky in a fight. In the same way you can't have people getting economically destroyed just because they're not as smart or didn't get as lucky economically.
If people are free to beat the shit out of one another, it's not a community. And if people are living under the bridge, living without health care, etc it's not a community.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Crying and Religion
Milan Kundera (eventually I want to note about 50 things he pointed out) pointed out a character trait of dividing oneself in to two pieces where there is the person and then a part of the person off to the side just observing. I do that to extreme.
To the point that once long ago I was crying about some truly horrific thing and instead I started really analyzing what was going on within me, what made it possible to cry, etc. I realized that I was doing something akin to praying/begging before the altar/statue of some god. I was realizing the existence of some godlike entity and asking it for help, showing it how pitiful my life was, asking it to take my pain. It was a very strong feeling. I suspect it's the same for others but, as with so many things, people don't carry this objective/observing of themselves to such extremes.
They say what makes us human is the ability to recognize ourselves, to recognize our existence, and for that matter (partially related) to look in mirrors and realize it's us. (Disproven with elephants and in general I don't assign any particular special trait to humans.) Thing is, though, anyway, we aren't actually that good at recognizing what the heck we're thinking, IMO. I'm often amazed to what degree people can't explain why they feel the way they do about a given thing. For example, "I'm just feeling depressed and I don't know why."
Anyway, I realized what it was necessary to be thinking about in order to be able to cry. The result was I went ten years without crying (only partially true as that probably wasn't the only reason of course). Whenever I thought about possibly doing so, I was stuck with understanding the reality of what would be occuring in my head, that I was so clearly believing in a "god".
And I do want to believe in a god. But my logic crushes my faith. (Except when it absolutely can't. I'm still bothering to live for example.) And so when close to crying, I'd instead think about the absurdity of god, the absurdity of the process it takes to cry and instead usually just laugh. It's funny the endless people calling themselves atheist who logically believe and don't believe all the same things as me who yet can cry up a storm utterly unaware of what the essential element it is that it takes to manage pulling that off at all.
What a ridiculous predicament we are in with the most intelligent occasionally crying up a storm to some unseen all powerful being who will then turn around and say, "Flying sky fairies? How ridiculous!"
---
Also it seems generally, that focusing on the absurdity behind emotions can make it hard to still feel emotions. But eventually one can overcome this. I have reached the point where I can understand the absurdity and still go with it at least with crying. Well not so often.
Also of religion I think there is a huge difference between what people logically believe and how they live and the important thing is how one lives. If you're bothering to live at all, then you must not think it's in vain. If you really believe that you shall cease to exist and all memory of your existence shall simply disappear than you are living in vain. To logically face this would mean not bothering. Instead people say that's what they logically believe, yet, they keep getting out of bed most days. Thus they aren't living as atheists. There is no such thing actually.
And boy what an annoying thing pointing this out to atheists considering how I used to make fun of religionists. Very annoying to get the same ridicule in return now. The assumption of stupidity and the hate, etc. But yes, organized religion has been a horror in this world. No doubt of that.
But morality (acting in a fashion that doesn't clearly benefit the acter) is largely based on focusing on the very long term. Quite often well beyond any amount of time the person could still be alive to even potentially benefit from the action. This certainly doesn't mean theists are more moral as, again, what atheists logically believe and what they act like they believe often have nothing in common (same as with everyone else). And so a given atheist can go his whole life logically being atheist yet committing all these "altruistic" (to get technical beyond what I've done so far, real altruism doesn't actually exist, which isn't to take some ghastly Ayn Rand line) acts that can't possibly benefit himself in this life and never really understanding why he's doing so.
To the point that once long ago I was crying about some truly horrific thing and instead I started really analyzing what was going on within me, what made it possible to cry, etc. I realized that I was doing something akin to praying/begging before the altar/statue of some god. I was realizing the existence of some godlike entity and asking it for help, showing it how pitiful my life was, asking it to take my pain. It was a very strong feeling. I suspect it's the same for others but, as with so many things, people don't carry this objective/observing of themselves to such extremes.
They say what makes us human is the ability to recognize ourselves, to recognize our existence, and for that matter (partially related) to look in mirrors and realize it's us. (Disproven with elephants and in general I don't assign any particular special trait to humans.) Thing is, though, anyway, we aren't actually that good at recognizing what the heck we're thinking, IMO. I'm often amazed to what degree people can't explain why they feel the way they do about a given thing. For example, "I'm just feeling depressed and I don't know why."
Anyway, I realized what it was necessary to be thinking about in order to be able to cry. The result was I went ten years without crying (only partially true as that probably wasn't the only reason of course). Whenever I thought about possibly doing so, I was stuck with understanding the reality of what would be occuring in my head, that I was so clearly believing in a "god".
And I do want to believe in a god. But my logic crushes my faith. (Except when it absolutely can't. I'm still bothering to live for example.) And so when close to crying, I'd instead think about the absurdity of god, the absurdity of the process it takes to cry and instead usually just laugh. It's funny the endless people calling themselves atheist who logically believe and don't believe all the same things as me who yet can cry up a storm utterly unaware of what the essential element it is that it takes to manage pulling that off at all.
What a ridiculous predicament we are in with the most intelligent occasionally crying up a storm to some unseen all powerful being who will then turn around and say, "Flying sky fairies? How ridiculous!"
---
Also it seems generally, that focusing on the absurdity behind emotions can make it hard to still feel emotions. But eventually one can overcome this. I have reached the point where I can understand the absurdity and still go with it at least with crying. Well not so often.
Also of religion I think there is a huge difference between what people logically believe and how they live and the important thing is how one lives. If you're bothering to live at all, then you must not think it's in vain. If you really believe that you shall cease to exist and all memory of your existence shall simply disappear than you are living in vain. To logically face this would mean not bothering. Instead people say that's what they logically believe, yet, they keep getting out of bed most days. Thus they aren't living as atheists. There is no such thing actually.
And boy what an annoying thing pointing this out to atheists considering how I used to make fun of religionists. Very annoying to get the same ridicule in return now. The assumption of stupidity and the hate, etc. But yes, organized religion has been a horror in this world. No doubt of that.
But morality (acting in a fashion that doesn't clearly benefit the acter) is largely based on focusing on the very long term. Quite often well beyond any amount of time the person could still be alive to even potentially benefit from the action. This certainly doesn't mean theists are more moral as, again, what atheists logically believe and what they act like they believe often have nothing in common (same as with everyone else). And so a given atheist can go his whole life logically being atheist yet committing all these "altruistic" (to get technical beyond what I've done so far, real altruism doesn't actually exist, which isn't to take some ghastly Ayn Rand line) acts that can't possibly benefit himself in this life and never really understanding why he's doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
