quote
follow
|
24-12-2015 Definitely some difference between them. With people living their lives on the correct turn of a phrase it sure is comforting that Jesus spoke English and the one, true Bible is in English, as well. And since God dictated it as it was written there are sure to be no mistakes or misunderstandings! |
[ link ] |
24-12-2015
Difference, you mean between the translations? English? I thought Bible was in Ukrainian! |
|
26-12-2015 I was looking for a German translation of "Breaking-point" (German translation: Am letzten Punkt) and could only find one in an antique bookshop. It got translated from same guy who translated Sanin, so I guess it cant be as bad as the English text. But they want 70 Euros for it. Hmmpf, I really have to think about that. Or I really start learning Russian now, and read the original text. Until now, I was just to lazy to learn it, but that could be a great motivation. I wonder why Artsybashev is not more popular. I don't know how it is in the Ukraine or in Russia, but here, no one knows him. Sure, some of the characters (at least in Sanin) seem to be a bit stereotypical and cliched. But I think that it was intentional, to use archetypes, kinds of people that are relateable. And stereotypes are also easier to mock. But he only mocks them in a slight ironic way, in a lovely way, so to say. But anyway, he uses this characters as an alibi to get across his ideas, musings and rants. And that's were he really shines. So I think that hes an awesome writer who deserves more attention.I remember, in my late childhood or early teen years, when I got aware of the fact how mindbogglingly enormous our universe, I started to doubt God. If there is a God in this enormous universe, why should he be so concerned with human affairs, with me? Why do we think that we are so special, worthy being the center of his attention. That's just ridiculous. Even if our earth explodes, or if our hole galaxy just implodes into a a black hole, it would be a just a trivial non-event in the grand scheme of thinks. Even here on earth, a tsunami washes away hundred-of-thousands people. Some years later, life just moves on as if nothing ever happened. So also the death of thousands is just trivial banality which doesn't really matter. But I have to admit that I started to believe in some other nonsense for while. I think because I always was quite neurotic and melancholic, and I still wanted to have some sense of control and security. But however, even today I say, that if there is a god, he has no relevance, and if he exists we know nothing about him. Obviously he gives a fuck about our pathetic sensibilities and morals. So it would be a God not worth bothering with. I dont know if that makes me an agnostic or an atheist. But I still wonder, why I give so much a fuck about things. If I am happy or unhappy, if I am a good person or not, if I figure out the truth about anything, if i am alive or dead, none of it really matters. Who cares, who gives a fuck? Yet I seem to be programmed in ways to care about things. That's absurd. So I envy people who can be genuine true Nihilists (not just in theory, as most), if there are such people. |
[ link ] |
27-12-2015
Even here on earth, a tsunami washes away hundred-of-thousands people. Some years later, life just moves on as if nothing ever happened. Right. Good comparison. I wonder why Artsybashev is not more popular. I don't know how it is in the Ukraine or in Russia, but here, no one knows him. No one knows him here either. People hate pessimism everywhere. Suppose that's why Zappffe's "On the tragic" still remains untranslated ? :) here's some discussion on it btw But I still wonder, why I give so much a fuck about things. If I am happy or unhappy, if I am a good person or not, if I figure out the truth about anything, if i am alive or dead, none of it really matters. Who cares, who gives a fuck? Yet I seem to be programmed in ways to care about things. That's absurd. So I envy people who can be genuine true Nihilists (not just in theory, as most), if there are such people. Why do you care if you care or not? Just try not giving a fuck if you give a fuck. I recommend this guru. |
|
26-12-2015 @TheMeme Don't confuse nihilism with AN, I don't think they are the same. AN doesn't want to kill or destroy things, merely stop making new people that suffer and cause suffering. If, eventually, the buildings and highways decay through lack of maintenance, etc. that is a different concern, and really not much we can do about. We could prepare for our absence through trying to remedy the problems we have set up, like nuclear power plants and plugged oil wells, etc., so that they cause fewer problems when abandoned, but AN isn't about destroying, which is the way I understand one of the basic tenets of nihilism. |
[ link ] |
27-12-2015
Kirk, I don't think theMeme mentioned AN at all. But why do you think nihilism is necessarily about destroying? I think it's just a position that more or less states 'nothing matters', it doesn't tell you what to do at all, wouldn't it be illogical to advise on any course of action if you've just declared all human morality to be an artificial construct not based in objective reality? |
|
27-12-2015 @Irinaquote:
But I still wonder, why I give so much a fuck about things. If I am happy or unhappy, if I am a good person or not, if I figure out the truth about anything, if i am alive or dead, none of it really matters. Who cares, who gives a fuck? Yet I seem to be programmed in ways to care about things. That's absurd. So I envy people who can be genuine true Nihilists (not just in theory, as most), if there are such people. What I meant was that it's OK to feel or value or recognize compassion, that is a fundamental component to AN, IMO. I don't think nihilists are better off than anti-natalists, so envying them isn't necessarily well-founded. My initial though when reading "nihilism" being 3a, but that is just one definition, so perhaps meant as 1 instead. I should have clarified and been more open to the other definitions, primarily philosophical. niВ·hilВ·ism (nī′ə-lДz′əm, nē′-) n. 1. Philosophy The doctrine that nothing actually exists or that existence or values are meaningless. 2. Relentless negativity or cynicism suggesting an absence of values or beliefs: nihilism in postwar art. 3. a. Political belief or action that advocates or commits violence or terrorism without discernible constructive goals. b. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid-19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination. 4. Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist. |
[ link ] |
30-12-2015
Ok, guess it doesn't hurt to learn more definitions of nihilism. )) I just know in philosophical circles, specifically in AN debates nihilism is predominately used either in existential sence (denying meaning to life) or moral sense (denying value). I've also once seen an interview with a nihilism who said that although nihilists don't believe in any objective morality, they can still subscribe to conventional morality out of practical purposes and concerns, because it makes freaking sense :D This position is the one I can support. |
|
29-12-2015 @Irinaquote:
Suppose that's why Zappffe's "On the tragic"В still remains untranslated ? Yeah, but I don't think that its because of hatred or because such texts are such dangerous reads. I think there is just not a very big market for such books. And a publisher has to pay the translator and has some publishing costs as well.If he thinks that that publishing such a book is economically unreasonable, he won't do it. But I have actually never read anything from Zapffe, only heard from him from others (usually about the four defense strategies). But a short while ago, as I ranted about the tragic workings of our humans minds, someone told me that I may like Zapffes texts then. So I might give him a try. I am not sure what exactly his views are, but he seems to think that we are tragic because we have become to over-conscious, or to knowledgeable. But that's something I might have some disagreements with. I merely think that certain operational modes, or configurations of conscious and selfhood are problematic and suffering-enhancers. I think that our usual conscious state is not really 'natural' but may be the result of a 'panicked mind' or the result of a kind of a trauma: It's numb state, a state of suffering. But this things may be more complicated. But nonetheless, I think we are an abnormality in nature, natures insane children so to say. Yet Zapffes four strategies still hold true, even with my views: We just want to have some temporary holidays from our usual painful state of mind here an there. Furthermore I also had some random glimpses into the supreme animal conscious. A state that works as intended my mother nature: True, there is still these pleasure and pain thing going on, but in a very non-problematic automatic way. And when it comes to selfhood: yes theres a sort of point of reference where 'experience' happens, but this point of reference is entirely impersonal, owned by no one, and as such, a merely 'anonymous' impersonal phenomena or happening in nature. Nothing like our usual semi-schizoid self. Thats why I think that Efilists a just projecting, when they claim that animals have the same reaction to pain, with similar strong psychological aversions and reactions that actually creates problematic suffering. quote:
I recommend this guru. Ha ok, usually I am not a friend of gurus and such. But a cat-guru, I think I can accept that. They don't talk that much, don't they. Must be the 'wisdom of silence' or something like that, I guess. @Kirk Yes, what i meant with nihilism was 'nothing matters', as Irina said. Yes it's ok to feel, but to much feeling and empathy can probably be as problematic as psychopathy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_Altruism . I don't think that one can really compare Nihilism with AN, because AN is very specific (birth has negative value). It would be fairer to compare pessimism with nihilism instead. But that would be a good topic on its own, if AN is compatible with the three nihilisms (existential/moral/epistemological) that are usually used in philosophy. I would like to be a better nihilist, mainly because it would be better in line with my intellectual conclusions. If you're an AN because of empathy and love and everything, well that's good for you. In my case, I am not so sure about that, theres also plenty of sadness and bitterness inside me, and I don't want to fool myself about my real motivations just because it makes me feel good about myself. |
[ link ] |
30-12-2015
I think there is just not a very big market for such books. Yep, you're right, of course. People will keep translating Meine Kampf if it makes them money.)) he seems to think that we are tragic because we have become to over-conscious, or to knowledgeable. I think that's it. Which is hard to disagree with. But nonetheless, I think we are an abnormality in nature, natures insane children so to say. Yes and no, because although we have this existential, unique kind of suffering, suffering in sentience is far from abnormal, it IS the norm in nature and in this sence we are yet another bread of nature's poor children. Efilists a just projecting, when they claim that animals have the same reaction to pain I don't think that they are. Not any more than those who claim the opposite, that animals must be better off are speculating. We don't know. But we can see the same reactions to pain stimuli as we exhibit, so that's logical to assume there's something very similar going on in cows or dogs or elephants... Some say they're better because they live in the moment, but on the other hand, if your moment is filled with pain right now, how does that help. After all, if you lack the ability to predict the future, or even have the cencept of future, then you also can't console yourself with thinking that this horrible moment is going to end one day.. Suppose zoopsychologists know best, at least, as best we can know. When you say that it's just some 'impersonal' sort of a 'happening' floating in the air or something - not actually taking place in every particular animal's brain as it is in ours when we experience pain and suffering - I can't quite collate it with all the 'ouches' and screams that come out of particular mouths when they're hurt and not from random animals that aren't. There's a strong correlation that a petted cat purrs and a burnt alive cat screams and runs. I think it demonstrates to us that that particular animal is experiencing very distinctive states, and very ersonally and intimately. Just like humans, there's no difference. Why do you think one needs an artificial concept of self, of personality, - which arguably does not exist in the real world anyway - to be able (or be cursed with) experiencing suffering or pleasure in a way that you or I are experiencing it? I agree that it is a lesser suffering if an animal is being farmed only to be slaughtered later than if a human being is imprisoned and is awaiting execution, for example, because an animal can not figure out what's going to happen to it one day so up until that day comes, if it is treated well and allowed to run around and play and is fed and sheltered properly it might even be happy, whereas a human will have nightmares and panic attacks and depression and god knows what. But aside from suffering enabled by the ability to predict the future, what difference might be in a sharp agonizing pain which renders all thinking in that very moment impossible, the pain that just fills your whole consciousness with itself, where you can't even think any more much less remember who you are, what difference is there when this kind of agony is happening inside a human or a chimpanzee brain? I don't think we are in our highest conscious awareness sort of a state when we exerience this pain, do you? I think our reptilian brain is quite enough to enable that sort of a "nature's whip". I am horrified when a fish is being scaled alive, or when I hear that some other animal is being cooked while alive. I wouldn't be had they not been exhibiting the same signs of pain that us humans are when hurt. I mean, if they are not "really" hurt but just some hurt occurs somewhere in the universe or whatever - why are they swirling and their pupils narrowing? Coincidence? We have all evolved from one ancestor, and although we're so versatile in a myrad of ways, I think in this one dichotomy of "pain - bad, pleasure - good" we are all too similar, and in fact, denying that animals are very much like us in this is more of a stretch than "projecting" our human experience of pain and pleasure onto them. We came from their level of development, so to say, we were once "monkeys" and we've made a step "forward", but our ability to experience pleasure and pain the way we do couldn't have just popped up along with our "superior" consciousness. If pain wasn't so bad for animals, they wouldn't be running from it, just like we do. Anyway, you get my point.))) I would like to believe that animals suffer less than us, for their sake. But I just feel that it might be just wishful thinking. |
|
30-12-2015 @Meme I am fundamentally AN because of compassion and the lack of consent when putting someone at risk for absolutely no real reason but the temporary satisfaction of the parent. Love and logic, I would say. |
|
30-12-2015 Dear Irina,I hope you have a good 2016,or at least a calm year. Your translation of Artsybashev is excellent reading. Please keep up with the blog. Raul |
[ link ] |
30-12-2015
Hi Raul, Thank you! Have a good year you too! Glad you've enjoyed my translations. |
|
30-12-2015
quote:
I don't think that they are. Not any more than those who claim the opposite, that animals must be better off are speculating. Though I am quite aware of the fact that altered states of conscious don't necessarily make good arguments. But the are good to ditch naive assumption that we have about the workings of our minds and that our everyday way of experiencing is the only way that things can be. I wouldn't say that in such a state as I have described, that there isn't any pain. Quite the opposite, through the 'higher sensory quality' the actual qualia of this sensation is even felt more intense. But the psychological reaction to pain -the actual suffering- is quite different. It just plays out quite differently, in an unbothering automatic way. I think thats because of the selfless nature of such states. Pain happens, pleasure happens, but the are actually not referring to -someone-, but play out in the phenomena of conscious, or impersonally in the Global Workspace (to use an expression by Dan Dennett). So yes, I think that our usual sense of self-hood and our ways of suffering are connected. So for me, its not conscious as such that is the big boogieman here, more a certain -configuration- or our usual sense of selfhood and agency. And that is, I think, pretty abnormal in nature. But I am just trying to describe such an altered state here, not using it as an actual argument. Because I think that the usual notion 'ouch' --> 'suffering' is very, very naive. For more sophisticated arguments you can look here, because I am too lazy to rehash them https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/why-fish-likely-dont-feel-pain/ Thouh he argues about fish here, he has imho some good arguments for other animals as well quote:
There's a strong correlation that a petted cat purrs and a burnt alive cat screams and runs. I think it demonstrates to us that that particular animal is experiencing very distinctive states, and very personally and intimately. Yes, animals want to avoid pain, some of the more social animals are screaming and crying (calling for the help of others). But it doesn't tell us that much about the animal mind from the -inside-. But before you think that I must be such a monster: Even I don't think that animals suffer the same way as humans, I don't like to see animals in pain and try to prevent or stop it. Merely because it makes me feel bad (I am very selfish here). quote:
Why do you think one needs an artificial concept of self, of personality, - which arguably does not exist in the real world anyway Well, usually selfhood and agency are felt as very real or are somewhat hallucinations that are believed as real. But that mustn't be so, as I have experienced in altered states (but you may not accept that as an argument). And that subjectively makes a big difference, suffering wise, if there is a self (at least in the usual way) or not. But however, though I think the feelings towards animal suffering are mostly the result of anthropomorphism and that we are projecting our own psychology also when it comes to physiological reactions, we can't be absolutely sure how it is to be these or that animal, and therefore it's good to have an careful approach towards animals in pain. |
|
06-01-2016 I have read Zapffes essay 'The Last Messiah" by now (the English text, i couldn't find a German translation) and there's not that much that wouldn't add up with my own muddled conclusion. Though he recognizes the problem of selfhood but for him the main thing to blame for our suffering is 'too much knowledge'. So he beautifully writes: "He has lost his right of residence in the universe, has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and been expelled from Paradise. He is mighty in the near world, but curses his might as purchased with his harmony of soul, his innocence, his inner peace in life’s embrace ".He seems to think that our dysfunctional (as far as suffering is concerned) state of selfhood is somehow derived from rational knowledge and threats this self as something that is real, as a rational conclusion. I don't agree: This Self is a delusion, an irrational tragic hallucination that easily can be disputed with logical and rational inquiry. It's not hard to see for someone, who is more serious about such inquiries, that this selfhood can not be. as it is believed and felt: That there is someone who make choices, a Someone who owns a body, that there is someone to whom all this thoughts, feelings, experiences are related to. And empirically: No neuroscientist has ever seen a self, in fact no one has ever seen a self. But despite all this disputing: The self is usually still felt as something that is real and exists: So it's a tragic hallucination, sort of a hypnotic spell, not something that could be derived from logical thinking or empirical knowledge. All this thinking about existence, are imho mere rationalizations of something that is already felt. And so I think that this usual sense of self is the root cause of suffering, the real tragedy. Here we have it, a frightened little thing (a self), something that is apart and substantially different from the rest of existence. This poor little thing, that thinks that it was born and gonna die (no matter what!), horrified in an alien grand universe got freaked out: Hyperactive thinking, constant unease and despair, chronic stress caused by an survival mechanism gone mad. Of course most learn to cope with that horrible hallucination of one owns existence: They learn to distract themselves in various ways or just try not to think about it. But not everyone can do so or is very good at it: The classical horrified suffering Pessimist. I don't think that my version of the human tragedy is the hole truth: There seem to be a connection with hyperactive thinking, craving, strong aversions, neurotic thought and a particular sense of self. So this particular sense of self seems to be the result of a struggling mind. But I don't know what comes first here. So it's understandable that some approaches that try to reduce human suffering, try to calm down the mind, reduce and eliminate craving and aversion. Though I think that these approaches are legit and can work to certain degree, but the will not be able to eliminate the real cause of suffering, imho the real true parent of all horrors: The believe and the feeling that we really exist. I see these urges for transcendence, all these noble quests for salvation and spiritual enlightenment as an attempt of nature to return to back to sanity, the natural state of no-self. But most of this attempts will be futile, tragic failings. Most will die in this horrible state, many will go insane and only few will 'achieve' their own non-existence (But at what price??!). So, as I try to be a good pessimist and all, my outlook is as fatalistic as Zapffes, or even more so: there will never be a Last Messiah who says: "Know yourselves – be infertile and let the earth be silent after ye." Hopeless. |
[ link ] |
07-01-2016
The self is usually still felt as something that is real and exists: So it's a tragic hallucination, sort of a hypnotic spell It's probably because this development of events was evolutionarily beneficial. Treating others as responsible for their actions as well as feeling in control of ones own. Kind of logical then to imagine an agesnt, a self behind every living physical human body. Some people go as far as to blame and judge animals for what they do. Not just train them and attempt to fix their behavior - which is possible - but be actively judgemental mad or reproachful, as if they could make ethical choices same way we "can" [generally assumed we can]. But on the other hand, had we not had any accountability for our actions, we'd be living just as animals still. Or how do you imagine an alternative world where people wouldn't believe they had selves, or that they were separate entities that existed? Wouldn't they still had hunger that would drive them to go hunt and steal and hurt others in an attempt to satisfy the hunger they feel? Self may be an illusion, but indviduality is just a fact, we all have separate brains and they don't all show the same movie, we don't all feel the same at the same time, we are separate. Just because we are all very similar biological machines, doesn't mean one man can not have a headache at the same time when another is having an orgasm. I don't see a point in sort of trying to make everything that exist into one soup. And be careful when you say "natural", as in " the natural state of no-self", because technically everything that happens in nature is natural. A "glitch" in the natural system would also be natural. Besides, even if something is natural doesn't mean it is desirable or the best possible layout. Girls can get pregnant in 12, it's natural, but dumb from our current point of view. And so I think that this usual sense of self is the root cause of suffering, the real tragedy. Here we have it, a frightened little thing (a self), something that is apart and substantially different from the rest of existence. I think suffering is there no matter what. And even if I think of myself as just a processing brain that has no presonality, but remembers its own past and therefore experiences a continuity, even if I think of myself as just a feeling computer, same as gazillions other conputers, not really different in any way from the others - this is me denying self as something that destinguishes me - I would still know logically that if I put my hand in the fire it will hurt. Will hurt inside me, so I better not do that. I'd still know that I'm in the world that can cause me great harm, lots and lots of ways it can still hurt me. And so I would still feel afraid: of a debilitating disease, of losing a loved one, etc. The sense of self is not the same as feeling things, if you're alive - you feel. No way around that but death. |
|
08-01-2016 quote: It's probably because this development of events was evolutionarily beneficial. Well, maybe. But let's not forget because a certain trait, attribute and so on exists in a species does not necessary mean that such a trait is beneficial. Some traits are just there, the result of fucking, breeding and random mutation, without any particular benefits. You know, it mainly means that it didn't kill off our ancestors. Or it could mean that it's a mere side effect of an actual beneficial trait. And this negative side effect was not negative enough to outweigh the advantages of the beneficial trait. I speculate that our usual sense of self has indeed something to do with symbolic processing or (abstract) thinking. Language and creating viable symbolic models about our environment, labeling and applying value and so on, is certainly an advantage. But also drawbacks. This 'symbolic and abstract world’ somehow became our main experienced reality. So it kind of took too much place in our conscious minds, insofar that it strongly overshadows the actual 'raw’ experience of reality. This abstract world became our actual central reality. The price we pay for this, is that in a way we lost touch with reality. We became somewhat insane. In such an altered state which I am trying to describe (and from which i believe that is closer to common 'animal consciousness’) the actual direct experience without this mental overshadowing is the actual content of consciousness, the 'abstraction’ seems to get processed more subconsciously. So I think the whole thing has more to do with the information flow or 'direction’ in the brain. But I don't know , I am not a neuroscientist. Of course you are correct with the 'unnatural’ thing. What I meant is, that in such a state the experience also adds up with logic and empiricism. Not as the usual contradictory state of unease. Just happenings in the global workspace, impersonal awareness owned by no one, just a phenomena in nature, everything happens automatically without conscious struggling. Here the kind of suffering is not bothersome in the same way . I don't know why this is so, maybe because pain does not refer to anyone and the lack of mental labeling or value judgment. The point there is not melding everything into a soup, more that no one exists: Not as concept or believe, but actually known and derived from experience. So what I am trying to get across here, is a state or way of being, not just believing something different. There's no point to replace one belief or concept with another one. Just that there's a way of experiencing that is in a way more real. Unfortunately i can not tell you how to get there, and if, i would not recommend it. Or only if its permanent. But in my case these states where only temporary, which only adds to suffering. I guess these were random attempts of my brain to fix its misery. So I realized how bad the everyday state really is: what a numb, idiotic, stressful suffering struggling. Even the good days in that everyday state is just numb chickenshit compared to that how things could be. Yet I can't do anything about it. That sucks. Thomas Ligotti somehow seems to get it: MC: Let’s close this out with another question of global scope. What would a perfect world be like for you? That’s of course assuming that you and a world would have to exist at all. You’ve made it perfectly clear in numerous stories and interviews that you’re a fundamental pessimist who thinks it a crying shame that there’s something instead of nothing. But given the (supposed) necessity of existence, what would be the best life and the best world for you personally, if you had absolute freedom of choice? TL: Assuming that anything has to exist, my perfect world would be one in which everyone has experienced the annulment of his or her ego. That is, our consciousness of ourselves as unique individuals would entirely disappear. We would still function as beings that needed the basics—food, shelter, and clothing—but life wouldn’t be any more than that. It wouldn’t need to be. We would be content just to exist. There’s only one problem in this world: none are content with what they have. We always want something else, something “more.” And then when we get it, we still want something else and something more. There is no place of satisfaction for us. We die with regrets for what we never did and will never have a chance to do. We die with regrets for what we never got and will never get. The perfect manner of existence that I’m imagining would be different than that of most mammals, who feed on one another and suffer fear due to this arrangement, much of it coming at the hands of human beings. We would naturally still have to feed, but we probably would not be the omnivorous gourmands and gourmets that we presently are. Of course, like any animal we would suffer from pain in one form or another—that’s the essence of existence—but there wouldn’t be any reason to take it personally, something that escalates natural pain to the level of nightmare. I know that this kind of world would seem terribly empty to most people—no competition, no art, no entertainment of any kind because both art and entertainment are based on conflict between people, and in my world that kind of conflict wouldn’t exist. There would be no ego-boosting activities such as those which derive from working and acquiring more money than you need, no scientific activity because we wouldn’t be driven to improve the world or possess information unnecessary to living, no religious beliefs because those emerge from desperations and illusions from which we would no longer suffer, no relationships because those are based on difference and in the perfect world we’d all be the same person, as well as being integrated into the natural world. Everything we did would be for practical purposes in order to satisfy our natural needs. We wouldn’t be enlightened beings or sages because those ways of being are predicated on the existence of people who live at a lower epistemological stratum. (Source: http://www.teemingbrain.com/interview-with-thomas-ligotti/) As it's highly unlikely that people will wrap their heads around AN, I hope we can at least someday figure out the neural and genetic underpinnings of our bad state, the human condition, and fix ourselves. Because I don't think that the usual 'spiritual' solutions work well, and have very low success rate. So I would choose the second best option so to say. But he also adds: "Not many people are interested in living in this world, so there is little motivation to work towards it. As much as we complain about life, we’re pretty much satisfied, or think we are, with the ways things are from here to eternity. To me, this is definitive proof that human beings don’t deserve to live in a perfect world. Even in fables wherein people lived in a paradise that is supposedly without ego or unnatural desires—Adam and Eve, Pandora—someone always does something to fuck things up so that the world can become the one we already know and, in our depraved way, love.". I have to admit he has a point there. So it's probably as unrealistic as AN. --- > Edited 08-01-2016 07:16:39 |
[ link ] |
24-01-2016
Some traits are just there, the result of fucking, breeding and random mutation, without any particular benefits. Yeah, sure. All we know is that it wasn't detrimantal to survival, at least initially. Surely the intellectual level of our ancestors and their self consciousness was lower than ours today. Come to think of it, maybe not much, lol)) But I am still inclined to think the trait was likely beneficial with respect to accountability and responsibility and thus - influencing each person's beavior. What comes to mind are the examples of reciprocal altruism in nature. Animals basically invest when they make sacrifices and then watch who reciprcates and who doesn't, so that later they can treat the 'cheaters' the same way and thus preserve the species by making sure everyone pitches in. You know the experiment they done on bats? This link seems to talk about it http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221300482X Long story short, all bats take turn in feeding all babies, but if they see one of their sisters not feeding, they stop feeding her babies too. So, given our predisposition to laziness and cheating, it makes sense that a group that wants to survive needs to keep an eye on everybody and make everyone bust their asses equally, i guess.. And just in general, distinguishing where the danger (i.e., bullying) and where the comfort (i.e. grooming, food sharing) comes from also seems like a highly desirable for survival a trait, like crows can apparently remember human faces and who feeds them and who abuses them. Same way in a tribe if you remember that that guy has a temper - you'll do better by avoiding him, while if you perceive the world as one indistinguishable blob you'll be surprised every time you get kicked by a bully. Seems, again, that knowing identinies and that they have charachters and that they are responsible for their actions and that their behavior can be modified if you treat them in this or that manner - is a beneficial ability for survival in groups. And that already looks like a background for seeing agency in others, and then, logically, in yourself. Just happenings in the global workspace, impersonal awareness owned by no one, just a phenomena in nature, everything happens automatically without conscious struggling. Here the kind of suffering is not bothersome in the same way . I don't know why this is so, maybe because pain does not refer to anyone and the lack of mental labeling or value judgment. I find this to be rather not coherent. And I don't know why you would imagine it to be so. Why would a wounded rabbit being eaten alive by maggots not experience pain or why would this pain happening in his very brain be 'referring to no one'. You seem to be saying that if there's no one capable of judging pain stimuli to be bad they stop being processed as unpleasant, painful or torturous? Why would a physical pain that is being transmitted by a physical nervous system need some sort of a value judgement to be what it is - a painful sensation? Does a human baby feel pain or does it not because it can not yet label it anything or judge it morally? Our sense of self develops sometime around 2-3 years of age, are we somewhat immune to pain before that like you seem to think animals are? I see you're adding something later when you write "Of course, like any animal we would suffer from pain in one form or another—that’s the essence of existence—but there wouldn’t be any reason to take it personally, something that escalates natural pain to the level of nightmare." How do you distinguish between somebody's pain 'taken personally' and 'not taken personally'? And I wonder do you think the same mechanism of magnification when 'taken personally' exiss for pleasure? Is our human pleasure increased to the level of ecstatic one just because we 'take it personally' when compared to other animals? It's almost like you're saying with regards to pain that it needs a permission to appear in someone's brain. Some sort of 'oh, here you are, you are pain, I am the one experiencing you, I take you personally' pronouncement - and boom! pain settles in, full force. But if you don't believe in it - it's hardly noticeable, or disappears like a ghost? Why would all the mammals have such a complicated nervous system if feeling pain was optional? Nobody would choose to feel it. It is mandatory. It occupies your mind and doesn't ask fr a permission, and after it's there you have no choice but to recognize the fact "there is pain in my consciousness". There's nothing you can do but take morphium to take care of those nerve endings transmitting pain to your brain. Then it goes away, then you again assively recognize the fact "it is gone, i'm free from pain again". Unfortunately i can not tell you how to get there, and if, i would not recommend it. Or only if its permanent. But in my case these states where only temporary, which only adds to suffering. I guess these were random attempts of my brain to fix its misery. Whatever you were experiencing, maybe it was pleasant, but that doesn't tell us that this is actually what animals are experiencing. Lots of people have been in lots of weird states of consciousness, our brains are freaky machines... One of my atheist friends, while on drugs, reportedly read Koran and experienced the 'god is love' sensation. Lol. Minus the drugs reading the holy books never did anything to him tough. Can't trust our brains. I can't think of a good world, I just completely see no need for anything sentient to exist, I don't care for mineral kingdome, but the vulnerable stuff existing - it is a bad idea, period. No problem in non-existence. I find the very concept of 'need' repelling. Why would anyone think it's good that something needy should exist. Needy is faulty, needy is deficient, needy is dependent and vulnerable and predatory. To live in order to have food come into one end and out of another - is idiocy. And that's all we have in either human or animal world. Of course if cornered and have to choose best of the worst I'd just say make it a sufferingless world, whatever the design should be. But really just don't make anything, leave it in peace of nonexistence. |
|
24-01-2016 Hi Irina,I've been shuttered in the house due to the blizzard. I've felt anxiety due to death, which hopefully won't happen for decades but has irked me this weekend. Any ideas for intellectual comfort? Spasibo! |
[ link ] |
24-01-2016
I've heard of that blizzard bastard! And we have also been snowed in this last month, very cold and now also slippery, risking breaking a neck just going out to get groceries, lol. Yeah, that anxiety is a bitch. Everyone is different so I don't know what works for you. Some people comfort themselves with Epicurian philosohy that is 'where I am death is not and where death is I am not'. It's kind of sensible. Also what is sensible is that you have been 'dead' all the previous time before you were born and that didn't hurt, did it? So why fear what has been your home up until the last couple of decades. Me I just like to read/watch something gloomy and filled with death and pessimism. Kind of reminding myself why I actually wouldn't want to live in this shithole world anyhow. One of my Facebook friend said today the worst thing he read about was Nanking so I googled it and there are movies about this massacre. Not sure if going to watch it because I hate graphic sadism in movies but i might if I keep my hand on the mouse ready to fast forward. Just imagine this was somebody's very own life, and this is what hapenned in it. To us it's a movie, to them - it was their horrible reality, last experience on this horrid planet before they died. We're lucky if we witness less crap before we check out of this 'movie theater'. |
|
24-01-2016 Irina,We think alike! I was reading epicurus and it helped. I've been shoveling snow like a machine and hope I won't keel over from a heart attack like some men shoveling. I'm too young When returning from Nanking on the plane I tried to read a book called "The Rape of Nanking." It was so brutal I almost threw up and stopped reading |
Comments to Artsybashev pessimistic quotes on life, meaning, death - 3/1/2016