The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => General Misc. => Topic started by: What Came Before on May 15, 2013, 12:29:13 am
-
Mini-rant before bed! I'm not one to comprehend higher-level academic philosophy, or most of the "wank" on Three Pound Brain, but the apparent degree of relevance of the Dunyainic philosophy to the real-world is a bit disconcerting to me.
'The thoughts of all men arise from the darkness. If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own? How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before?'
Between all of the Dunyain stuff, Blind Brain Theory, etc., I've gone from believing in free will and the possibility of having unmanipulated thoughts to seeing how easily people are swayed and how difficult it is to think about the reasons why I think the way I do. It's like Inrilatas says:
'You cannot see the darkness that precedes your thoughts, but unlike most souls you know it exists. You appreciate how rarely you are the author of what you say and do…' He raised his shackled hands for a clap that never came. 'I'm impressed, Mother. You understand this trick the world calls a soul.'
Without sounding like a pompous person who feels enlightened compared to others, how does one go about life with this "knowledge"? Is it even worth knowing? Should I just pretend the Darkness doesn't exist and continue to "find meaning" like everyone else?
Does anyone else here think about this? Jeez, it's like I'm back in high school and having my first existential crisis :lol:
-
It's certainly valuable knowledge, and the way Bakker frames it in his theory of consciousness framework is really interesting, but if you fixate on it (like with anything) you'll miss for the forest for the trees. Free will is nebulous. Determinism makes sense and doesn't. The nuts and bolts of consciousness are perhaps the most difficult thing to understand in the universe, because our only instrument to study it is what we are studying. So realize that people are sometimes full of shit, and sometimes not, and just live your life. Absolutes are anathema to an open mind <--- even this statement is an absolute. So what do you do? Chilllll bro
-
Like some sort of spooky wind chime, I would say thoughts such as these are the background music of this forum!
In terms of going about life I think A: the corporate/capitalist investment in manipulation techniques and B: the apparently happy go lucky way people dream about modifying their brains are huge speed bumps (and that's just within the frame of this question - outside that you have wage slaves, starvation, sex slaves, etc, but that's another (valid) topic)
Also it depends on how invested you were in the often passed on notions of free will. Kinda like a topiary, if you grews around that frame, it's hard to remove it without collapsing, sprawled across ground last met as a child (but without the prodigous brain growing powers (or charity of parents) of a young child to face it with).
Ultimately, we live in the first world and despite our common wage slave status, we live fat with peace. Were not used to drawing a line in the sand and holding that ground. So we look at meaning for the sake of meaning, meaning for it's own sake, instead of meaning for the sake of holding literal ground for survival.
I think a tracing of meaning down to literal grounds of survival, is a step. Find what backs meaning, like finding the gold that backs the meaning of money. Not that gold is used to back money anymore (the idea got too popular and it the meaning of money began to be able to sit upon it's own meaning. Err, okay, I digress again!)
Take a tomato from the fridge, take a seed from it, let it dry. Then take some soil in a discarded platic cup and plant it.
-
Welcome to the forum, Meyna
-
The most disturbing point Bakker makes, IMO, is that there seems logically to be no middle ground between either:
1) having faith in the existence of something beyond what science tells us exists; or
2) admitting the nihilists are right, which means that even the phrase "the nihilists are right" becomes completely meaningless.
The inescapable pull of logic seems to lead either to something that sounds suspiciously like 'God', or to logic's own self-annihilation.
-
The world sleeps...
+1 on Windchime Metaphor, Callan.
Welcome to the Second Apocalypse, Meyna. Cheers for adding script to our noosphere.
Considering its a psychology midterm and not a philosophy one, I probably should give this some more serious thought later - which I will.
For the moment, as I'm sidetracked by... academics for the majority of the day, I'll offer quick thoughts.
Even a cursory study of basic bias and heuristic, which itself is a study in its infancy, truly, reveals that human beings are living an illusion. I'm not an Eliminativist - people who think we should refer to everything, at all times, by its most reducible description - except by analogy but the explanatory styles we offer the Western Empire, even human society, are out and out deceptive. They really couldn't get farther - yet they are - from anything we might think helps, philosophically defined, quality decision making.
Now Bakker has pursued this to depths unknown philosophically and psychologically. So if you are looking for a practical, day to day, integrated use from this perspective, that others are asleep, while you are, by some measure, awake, a couple thoughts:
First, take a hit to the ego. We're all subject to those same heuristics and biases, though, may be able to leverage our awareness of them against them - I don't think Bakker's that optimistic - I figure he thought we might've avoided the path entirely at some point.
Secondly, and this is hugely irresponsible of me, with an audience of any number of people, but the world turns with or without me so... in the interest of comprehension, I sincerely hope that none of you experience psychopathy in your lives and I don't preempt such adventures now:
Basically, you decide to make people aware of these things and come off like PON - which turns away a certain... vocal readership. Or you use it to your advantage - whatever that may be.
For my part, I do a little of both. But I decided the other day that I too am obsessed with Becoming, which is a sweet metaphor. I actively live my life to accomplish things which will change my brain and change the way I literally, physically experience the world - aside, Leaf, I've long given up my experimental drug phase - so I might garner a novel perspective on our classic academics and how human interaction becomes the world issues we humans experience aspects of.
Cheers, Meyna, I don't think I've ever written or voiced that to anyone, ever, so succinctly. But then, forum aside, I rarely express myself.
+1 Second Apocalypse.
-
Chilllll bro
The best course of action 8-)
B: the apparently happy go lucky way people dream about modifying their brains are huge speed bumps
The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.
Welcome to the forum, Meyna
Thank you so much! :)
The most disturbing point Bakker makes, IMO, is that there seems logically to be no middle ground between either:
1) having faith in the existence of something beyond what science tells us exists; or
2) admitting the nihilists are right, which means that even the phrase "the nihilists are right" becomes completely meaningless.
The inescapable pull of logic seems to lead either to something that sounds suspiciously like 'God', or to logic's own self-annihilation.
There is no hedging of bets, it's true. Yet, the Dunyain have strong convictions about their worldview; without achieving the self-moving soul, even they would have to admit that they might be wrong. They are demonstrably, however, a very successful people. "Close enough." :lol:
Madness: I am preoccupied today myself, so I will think about what you've said and respond later on. Thank you so much for sharing, and thank you for the warm welcome.
-
They are demonstrably, however, a very successful people. "Close enough."
Kellhus would argue that the Dunyain are not "close enough". He has become "more", but from the Dunyain point of view, he is insane.
-
Take a tomato from the fridge, take a seed from it, let it dry. Then take some soil in a discarded platic cup and plant it.
Go to jail for the rest of your life because Monsanto says so.
-
The world sleeps...
+1 on Windchime Metaphor, Callan.
Welcome to the Second Apocalypse, Meyna. Cheers for adding script to our noosphere.
Considering its a psychology midterm and not a philosophy one, I probably should give this some more serious thought later - which I will.
For the moment, as I'm sidetracked by... academics for the majority of the day, I'll offer quick thoughts.
Thank you again for the welcome!
Even a cursory study of basic bias and heuristic, which itself is a study in its infancy, truly, reveals that human beings are living an illusion. I'm not an Eliminativist - people who think we should refer to everything, at all times, by its most reducible description - except by analogy but the explanatory styles we offer the Western Empire, even human society, are out and out deceptive. They really couldn't get farther - yet they are - from anything we might think helps, philosophically defined, quality decision making.
At times it seems that the illusion is so definitively human. Where do we even want to go on an individual and societal level, anyway?
Now Bakker has pursued this to depths unknown philosophically and psychologically. So if you are looking for a practical, day to day, integrated use from this perspective, that others are asleep, while you are, by some measure, awake, a couple thoughts:
First, take a hit to the ego. We're all subject to those same heuristics and biases, though, may be able to leverage our awareness of them against them - I don't think Bakker's that optimistic - I figure he thought we might've avoided the path entirely at some point.
This gets to the meat of it, I think. First, I have to ask questions about myself and the world around me. What are my goals? What direction do I want to see existence go in? To what degree do I want to participate in that effort? To what degree can I participate in that effort? Perhaps I can answer those questions, however, if I were to ask a million people those same questions, I would get a million different answers, to say nothing about the accuracy of those answers.
If I look at this from an evolutionary standpoint, I have to wonder how we will fare as a species (measuring success from an evolutionary standpoint, that is) as time goes on. Would decreasing the Darkness be an advantage, and thus, will evolution naturally bring us down a Dunyain-like path without us even knowing it? If so, would it do any good at this point, when we may not yet have the ability as a species to make any progress against the Darkness, to acknowledge it and to struggle against it? Would that struggle be in line with the answers to my questions in the previous paragraph? Perhaps, for some people.
Knowing that the illusion exists certainly changes things, though. It would be like playing a game where most people think that the outcome is random, but you realize that there is in fact strategy involved. You can't not look at the game differently, even if a) you don't know the strategy, and b) you don't know if the strategy is even learnable.
Secondly, and this is hugely irresponsible of me, with an audience of any number of people, but the world turns with or without me so... in the interest of comprehension, I sincerely hope that none of you experience psychopathy in your lives and I don't preempt such adventures now:
Basically, you decide to make people aware of these things and come off like PON - which turns away a certain... vocal readership. Or you use it to your advantage - whatever that may be.
I try to resist ingroup bias, "good old days" bias, what have you, when interacting with others; the advantage being that arguing my biased preferences is rarely advantageous. I don't think that I fall towards the psychopathic end of the spectrum!
For my part, I do a little of both. But I decided the other day that I too am obsessed with Becoming, which is a sweet metaphor. I actively live my life to accomplish things which will change my brain and change the way I literally, physically experience the world - aside, Leaf, I've long given up my experimental drug phase - so I might garner a novel perspective on our classic academics and how human interaction becomes the world issues we humans experience aspects of.
Again, I try to comprehend why I have the thoughts and preferences that I have. That's asking a lot. Every experience, even sitting and doing "nothing," changes one's brain and their perception of reality. Can one get better at directing that process, so that brain changes complement the attaining of one's goals? How would such an ability fit in on a societal level? Are we all heading in that direction anyway?
Cheers, Meyna, I don't think I've ever written or voiced that to anyone, ever, so succinctly. But then, forum aside, I rarely express myself.
+1 Second Apocalypse.
Likewise -- I'm glad I'm here! Cheers!
-
They are demonstrably, however, a very successful people. "Close enough."
Kellhus would argue that the Dunyain are not "close enough". He has become "more", but from the Dunyain point of view, he is insane.
It will be interesting to see what Kellhus has become.
But the Dunyain: they seem, at times, to abhor certitude.
"Set aside your conviction," Moënghus said, "for the feeling of certainty is no more a marker of truth than the feeling of will is a marker of freedom. Deceived men always think themselves certain, just as they always think themselves free. This is simply what it means to be deceived."
Would this not also apply to the Dunyain themselves? Until absolute success in their experiment, they might concede that they might be wrong. On the other hand, Dunyain out in the world are so darn successful, that they must be on the right track, which could be enough to remove doubt in their system.
-
B: the apparently happy go lucky way people dream about modifying their brains are huge speed bumps
The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.
Depends - how do you distinguish between biases and goals?
-
B: the apparently happy go lucky way people dream about modifying their brains are huge speed bumps
The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.
Depends - how do you distinguish between biases and goals?
Ah, indeed. Without understanding at some level why we think the way we do, any goals that we strive for come from the Darkness, too. I suppose it's not an issue of distinguishing between biases and goals, but rather to understand the bias and motivations behind any goals that we set.
-
At times it seems that the illusion is so definitively human. Where do we even want to go on an individual and societal level, anyway?
There are arguments that the increasing complexity of our human manifestations - in this case, culture, society, and their institutions - will outrun our ability to actually solve the issues they cause. I'm reminded of the biological cascades, where a single trigger can cause an entire series of reactions.
I'm of the persuasion that we don't use our existing form effectively at all - I would advocate that we embody our bodies first. To me it sounds redundant but our first priority as a species should be to find some kind of homeostasis in the balance of individual and collective welfare while achieving the same with our environment - though it is, again, arguable that we've outgrown the biosphere's capacity already.
This gets to the meat of it, I think. First, I have to ask questions about myself and the world around me. What are my goals? What direction do I want to see existence go in? To what degree do I want to participate in that effort? To what degree can I participate in that effort? Perhaps I can answer those questions, however, if I were to ask a million people those same questions, I would get a million different answers, to say nothing about the accuracy of those answers.
I'd offer that you can only really decide the first three for yourself and integrate the last as constant rhetoric. If you want to personally engage, I think there will always be a constraint as to the degree that you, however your social station defines you in real life, can even participate in any social effort.
If I look at this from an evolutionary standpoint, I have to wonder how we will fare as a species (measuring success from an evolutionary standpoint, that is) as time goes on. Would decreasing the Darkness be an advantage, and thus, will evolution naturally bring us down a Dunyain-like path without us even knowing it? If so, would it do any good at this point, when we may not yet have the ability as a species to make any progress against the Darkness, to acknowledge it and to struggle against it? Would that struggle be in line with the answers to my questions in the previous paragraph? Perhaps, for some people.
Knowing that the illusion exists certainly changes things, though. It would be like playing a game where most people think that the outcome is random, but you realize that there is in fact strategy involved. You can't not look at the game differently, even if a) you don't know the strategy, and b) you don't know if the strategy is even learnable.
I could envisage "knowledge of ignorance" being another heuristic, which our consciousness might develop to leverage information. However, in research that has been done, we're already seeing, say, metabiases emerge from "leveraging biases with your knowledge of biases."
I don't really think these scenarios make it to an evolutionary stage. My guess is that we'll be dealing with the ramifications of neurocosmetic surgery and nootropics as socially acceptable in under ten years. Also, we've probably already derailed evolution significantly - think of how many people are alive today, that would have died without medical intervention, that "evolutionary mechanism" would have discarded, and how commonplace breeding with these "defectives" is - hell, I am "defective" as I'd probably have died at seven without antibiotics. Not giving us many adaptive advantages.
In a sense, attempting to think rationally, is an inadvertent attempt to be Dunyain?
Sorry, if these seem nonsensical, I'm simply writing stream of consciousness for the most part.
I try to resist ingroup bias, "good old days" bias, what have you, when interacting with others; the advantage being that arguing my biased preferences is rarely advantageous. I don't think that I fall towards the psychopathic end of the spectrum!
Lol, I was hoping to avoid advocating nihilism or complete utilitarianism ;).
I know that committing to a type of mental hygiene alienates a certain percentage of people and the possibility of interacting or even relating to others - I think, in some ways, this is Bakker's ultimate fear, that the loss of social recognition due to novel biological divisions in form and thought will cause irrevocable chaos.
But in lesser ways, the more we can't relate to those around us, the more we cannot interact with them. It's a crucial balance in my opinion and the chief psychological issue of the Hero's Journey (which is a narrative of every person's psychological path through life, as far as they journey) - how to communicate the revelations, the lessons, of your journey to the society you left behind? How do you communicate what you've become to what you once were?
But then do you want/need to relate? The recluse, the hermit as a commonplace way of life is a relatively new historical occupation - no longer simply for exiles and madmen.
Again, I try to comprehend why I have the thoughts and preferences that I have. That's asking a lot. Every experience, even sitting and doing "nothing," changes one's brain and their perception of reality. Can one get better at directing that process, so that brain changes complement the attaining of one's goals? How would such an ability fit in on a societal level? Are we all heading in that direction anyway?
I can't speak for everyone, Meyna. I know that my philosophies are already antiquated. Few will want to train, to practice, to exert effort to attempt directed neuroplasticity, in order to cultivate greater pattern recognition, anymore than they already do - in the sense, that few people are musicians or bilinguists, let's say. It's my thought that our cognitive supremacy is a product of some innovation like our opposable thumbs and the requisite increased cortical definition and density.
It's an interesting time to say the least. As the first species - as far as we know - able to leverage their nervous system in this fashion, there really aren't limits of integration once we start augmenting our forms. The first prosthetic connecting to our nervous system and willed by our volition is already a thing - next will come the integrating of novel sensory apparatuses (which, actually, is already being done). And this is public... Neil is fucking out there - somewhere - in a brightly lit NSA lab... laughing.
I'd hazard that these symptoms, which Bakker's chosen as a focus, are incidental to the Blind Brain problem though. It arguably implies that if we are blind to the actual functions of our brains - as we process only a sliver of the total information is receives and are using this to leverage knowledge about the actual functions of our brains - we shouldn't dive brain first into progress and begin changing the hardware based on the minimal understanding we do have, least we lose this original "human" configuration forever.
People are lazy. This forum, Bakker fandom in general, is a rare anomoly in the expression of mental rigor as are all scientists as distinguished by actually ascribing to the scientific method. And worse to consider that there is a portion of society using neuroscientific knowledge to get you to buy "anything you want" - the self-evident catchphrase of the 21st Century. Except you'll no longer have to buy Product-X to be happy, you can just buy "Happy" in pill form - the exact neuroprofile of a mother's joy after childbirth or some such nonsense.
Lol. +1 for Thoughts, Meyna.
-
Ah, indeed. Without understanding at some level why we think the way we do, any goals that we strive for come from the Darkness, too. I suppose it's not an issue of distinguishing between biases and goals, but rather to understand the bias and motivations behind any goals that we set.
Perhaps some idea before even setting such goals! :) Then again that might undercut certain already present drives to create. So I'm not sure.
Hope the forums reasonably fun so far! :) The books give alot of ideas to turn over.
-
At times it seems that the illusion is so definitively human. Where do we even want to go on an individual and societal level, anyway?
There are arguments that the increasing complexity of our human manifestations - in this case, culture, society, and their institutions - will outrun our ability to actually solve the issues they cause. I'm reminded of the biological cascades, where a single trigger can cause an entire series of reactions.
I'm of the persuasion that we don't use our existing form effectively at all - I would advocate that we embody our bodies first. To me it sounds redundant but our first priority as a species should be to find some kind of homeostasis in the balance of individual and collective welfare while achieving the same with our environment - though it is, again, arguable that we've outgrown the biosphere's capacity already.
In some sense, I think we are slowing the increase of complexity of our human manifestations (as you put it very well) for two reasons. First, the world has gotten smaller, and it is easier than ever for humans to understand and appreciate other cultures, and thus take their own cultural ideas with a grain of salt. The internet has accellerated this. Second, the more widespread understanding of science. I don't think the complexity will stop or reverse, though: just slow down. However, with the advent of genetic engineering and other technological advances, it looks like we stand a good chance of using ourselves more and more efficiently and finding that balance with our environment. If we still are of a mind where we want to address the issues of complexity that have been piling up since the agricultural revolution, then that will be the time to do so.
This gets to the meat of it, I think. First, I have to ask questions about myself and the world around me. What are my goals? What direction do I want to see existence go in? To what degree do I want to participate in that effort? To what degree can I participate in that effort? Perhaps I can answer those questions, however, if I were to ask a million people those same questions, I would get a million different answers, to say nothing about the accuracy of those answers.
I'd offer that you can only really decide the first three for yourself and integrate the last as constant rhetoric. If you want to personally engage, I think there will always be a constraint as to the degree that you, however your social station defines you in real life, can even participate in any social effort.
I'll just say I'm a Prince of Atrithau who dreamed of participating ;)
Really, though, with the current way that the social order works in a lot of areas of our culture, one could participate in and accomplish very little or very much depending on one's level of confidence and the degree to which one speaks with authority -- the general way in which one goes about their business -- assuming one has the capabilities to fulfill said accomplishments in the first place.
I'm not sure that the first three questions can be answered without bias, but at least biased answers are still answers. I must (not really, but let's take it as a given) do something, after all!
If I look at this from an evolutionary standpoint, I have to wonder how we will fare as a species (measuring success from an evolutionary standpoint, that is) as time goes on. Would decreasing the Darkness be an advantage, and thus, will evolution naturally bring us down a Dunyain-like path without us even knowing it? If so, would it do any good at this point, when we may not yet have the ability as a species to make any progress against the Darkness, to acknowledge it and to struggle against it? Would that struggle be in line with the answers to my questions in the previous paragraph? Perhaps, for some people.
Knowing that the illusion exists certainly changes things, though. It would be like playing a game where most people think that the outcome is random, but you realize that there is in fact strategy involved. You can't not look at the game differently, even if a) you don't know the strategy, and b) you don't know if the strategy is even learnable.
I could envisage "knowledge of ignorance" being another heuristic, which our consciousness might develop to leverage information. However, in research that has been done, we're already seeing, say, metabiases emerge from "leveraging biases with your knowledge of biases."
I don't really think these scenarios make it to an evolutionary stage. My guess is that we'll be dealing with the ramifications of neurocosmetic surgery and nootropics as socially acceptable in under ten years. Also, we've probably already derailed evolution significantly - think of how many people are alive today, that would have died without medical intervention, that "evolutionary mechanism" would have discarded, and how commonplace breeding with these "defectives" is - hell, I am "defective" as I'd probably have died at seven without antibiotics. Not giving us many adaptive advantages.
In a sense, attempting to think rationally, is an inadvertent attempt to be Dunyain?
Sorry, if these seem nonsensical, I'm simply writing stream of consciousness for the most part.
As much as I want to think that we can overcome bias, I have to laugh when I hear that research is showing that resisting bias leads to bias :D
I can agree that we are circumventing some of the challenges that drives the evolution of most life, but there are still preferable genetic changes, even if it's just a matter of catering to the cultural biases of the people around you. The Darkness is driving human evolution more and more!
I try to resist ingroup bias, "good old days" bias, what have you, when interacting with others; the advantage being that arguing my biased preferences is rarely advantageous. I don't think that I fall towards the psychopathic end of the spectrum!
Lol, I was hoping to avoid advocating nihilism or complete utilitarianism ;).
I know that committing to a type of mental hygiene alienates a certain percentage of people and the possibility of interacting or even relating to others - I think, in some ways, this is Bakker's ultimate fear, that the loss of social recognition due to novel biological divisions in form and thought will cause irrevocable chaos.
But in lesser ways, the more we can't relate to those around us, the more we cannot interact with them. It's a crucial balance in my opinion and the chief psychological issue of the Hero's Journey (which is a narrative of every person's psychological path through life, as far as they journey) - how to communicate the revelations, the lessons, of your journey to the society you left behind? How do you communicate what you've become to what you once were?
But then do you want/need to relate? The recluse, the hermit as a commonplace way of life is a relatively new historical occupation - no longer simply for exiles and madmen.
It's a worryingt hought, that perhaps mastering the Darkness, if such a thing is even possible on any level, means one must eschew genuine experiences of relating to those who don't consider such things in their decision-making. Wanting or needing to relate would depend on one's goals. If someone needs to relate but can't, one must pretend, or choose different goals.
It's choosing the shortest path where not all paths are open -- one who walks the trackless steppe but doesn't know it. Perhaps the shortest path is among the ones available. If not, find a way to open it up (through acquiring more skills or pretending to relate to people, or whatever), or choose a non-optimal path. A Dunyain already has all (non-universally-impossible) paths available, the shortest necessarily being among those.
Again, I try to comprehend why I have the thoughts and preferences that I have. That's asking a lot. Every experience, even sitting and doing "nothing," changes one's brain and their perception of reality. Can one get better at directing that process, so that brain changes complement the attaining of one's goals? How would such an ability fit in on a societal level? Are we all heading in that direction anyway?
I can't speak for everyone, Meyna. I know that my philosophies are already antiquated. Few will want to train, to practice, to exert effort to attempt directed neuroplasticity, in order to cultivate greater pattern recognition, anymore than they already do - in the sense, that few people are musicians or bilinguists, let's say. It's my thought that our cognitive supremacy is a product of some innovation like our opposable thumbs and the requisite increased cortical definition and density.
It's an interesting time to say the least. As the first species - as far as we know - able to leverage their nervous system in this fashion, there really aren't limits of integration once we start augmenting our forms. The first prosthetic connecting to our nervous system and willed by our volition is already a thing - next will come the integrating of novel sensory apparatuses (which, actually, is already being done). And this is public... Neil is fucking out there - somewhere - in a brightly lit NSA lab... laughing.
I'd hazard that these symptoms, which Bakker's chosen as a focus, are incidental to the Blind Brain problem though. It arguably implies that if we are blind to the actual functions of our brains - as we process only a sliver of the total information is receives and are using this to leverage knowledge about the actual functions of our brains - we shouldn't dive brain first into progress and begin changing the hardware based on the minimal understanding we do have, least we lose this original "human" configuration forever.
People are lazy. This forum, Bakker fandom in general, is a rare anomoly in the expression of mental rigor as are all scientists as distinguished by actually ascribing to the scientific method. And worse to consider that there is a portion of society using neuroscientific knowledge to get you to buy "anything you want" - the self-evident catchphrase of the 21st Century. Except you'll no longer have to buy Product-X to be happy, you can just buy "Happy" in pill form - the exact neuroprofile of a mother's joy after childbirth or some such nonsense.
Lol. +1 for Thoughts, Meyna.
I thnk it all comes down to perceived wants: those who question are those who are unsatisfied with the wants that the Blind Brain offers, and wish for a way to change the brain -- something it already does on its own somehow using sensory input both past and present to work it's magic -- on their own terms.
+1 :)
-
Ah, indeed. Without understanding at some level why we think the way we do, any goals that we strive for come from the Darkness, too. I suppose it's not an issue of distinguishing between biases and goals, but rather to understand the bias and motivations behind any goals that we set.
Perhaps some idea before even setting such goals! :) Then again that might undercut certain already present drives to create. So I'm not sure.
Hope the forums reasonably fun so far! :) The books give alot of ideas to turn over.
How frustrating this blind brain is.
Thanks, Callan: you all are a good bunch!
-
As the cool kids say, danke! :)
Hopefully I wont spoil that (much?) by saying
However, with the advent of genetic engineering and other technological advances, it looks like we stand a good chance of using ourselves more and more efficiently and finding that balance with our environment.
That seems a bit scary?
And to Madness,
though it is, again, arguable that we've outgrown the biosphere's capacity already.
How so? Weve outgrown out biosphere, or we as in our collective hunger as it currently is, has outgrown it? If the greenhouse effect is occuring, I'd agree with the latter.
-
However, with the advent of genetic engineering and other technological advances, it looks like we stand a good chance of using ourselves more and more efficiently and finding that balance with our environment.
That seems a bit scary?
I am reminded of an excerpt from the Ragged Trousered Philosopher's Talking to God..., found here: http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine discovering an algorithm, accessible to any intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than a thousand years. Your species needs to grow up considerably before you can afford to make that discovery. And if you don’t make it, you will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient species on level two.
[...]
The only ones who reach level two are those who learn to accept and to live with their most dangerous knowledge. Each and every individual in such a species must eventually become capable of destroying their entire species at any time. Yet they must learn to control themselves to the degree that they can survive even such deadly insight. And frankly, they’re the only ones we really want to see leaving their solar systems. Species that haven’t achieved that maturity could not be allowed to infect the rest of the universe, but fortunately that has never required my intervention. The knowledge always does the trick.
It is scary. As a species, we already have the technology to cause a mass extinction, and technology of that magnitude is only going to get more and more common. We can't really stop it, either. Calling it a day with technological advancements is asking a lot -- we are driven to progress. I just hope we come to understand things like consciousness post-haste, so that we can grow in ways that will minimize the chances of self-destruction.
-
The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.
Campbell said something one along the lines of, "I think where there is energy there is consciousness." I interpret that to mean that the mechanisms that enable life have built into them by necessity the disposition to create stability by manipulating environmental conditions (some would say at the cost of greater entropy). I'd say consciousness IS manipulation; without any moral evaluation attached to the word "manipulation." I'd argue that it's not so much that we're entering a period where we're uniquely capable of manipulating, or being manipulated on, but rather that manipulation is the baseline of the game, and it's just that of late the symptoms and effects are becoming more acute.
In mother nature's kingdom, humanity is the real dunyain; manipulating circumstances in a way that outstrips our physical limitations (as Madness said, via opposable thumbs, also the ability to vocalize, the use and abuse of memory). We've been driving buffalo off cliffs since the twilight of the species, the poor bastards are "like children to us". But isn't evolution the outcome of maximizing fitness for an environment, and isn't that what life does, manipulate?
So, how does humanity subvert its own basic nature? Maybe smoke and magic, to pacify our native impulses so we don't bridle at the yoke that orients us toward behaviors that will not hinder the safe, controlled perpetuation of the species? But isn't that another manipulation? And if we do successfully thwart our basic nature, will we still be human?
Turning back toward the books, do you think it is possible for more than one person to become a "self-moving soul"? Look at Kellhus' relationships with his environment and those around him. A dunyain dominates circumstance. That's a pretty exclusive condition. Kellhus frees himself (or so he believes) by manipulating others. That might free him from being a victim of causal relationships, but I don't know where that strands humanity as a whole (both in a fictional sense or otherwise). The short answer might simply be that we're f$%#@d. Or maybe, since we're not attaching a moral evaluation on the whole phenomena, none of it really matters anyway. Not sure which is worse. :|
-
We can't really stop it, either. Calling it a day with technological advancements is asking a lot -- we are driven to progress.
Who is? What technological advancement have you or I enacted in the last few years?
Corporate (and to a lesser degree, government) funding of technological advancement? I agree that's the case - but is it a question of whether the corporate lords seem unassailable, or whether it just seems as must be?
The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.
Not that I've done a great deal of this, but I think one needs to write up codes and protocols more. Set up emperical measures and more importantly define the lifespan of the code or protocol - how many months or years it goes for. Set up markers how you are supposed to act, defined not in emotional wording (like 'in a proper way' - this isn't emperical) and measure oneself against ones code. The important thing about it having an ending is that if the code really grates against current circumstance, you might be able to tough it out. Otherwise to simply break with a code is to always break with codes, never adhering to any principles.
Otherwise I think we sway like kelp in the sea, this way and that, sometimes torn from our roots by the giddy waters around us. I don't think you can just make your mind somehow immune to that - to live is to go with a flow. The question is is it the flow you've decided upon to begin with? And how to measure that? And how long to go with that flow?
Turning back toward the books, do you think it is possible for more than one person to become a "self-moving soul"?
I've wondered about that - so what does that make of the dunyain order? Are they trying to make their own little god who'll look after them? Or take turns at the hot seat?
-
The Idea of Progress is a Western construct!!!!
-
In some sense, I think we are slowing the increase of complexity of our human manifestations (as you put it very well) for two reasons. First, the world has gotten smaller, and it is easier than ever for humans to understand and appreciate other cultures, and thus take their own cultural ideas with a grain of salt. The internet has accellerated this. Second, the more widespread understanding of science. I don't think the complexity will stop or reverse, though: just slow down. However, with the advent of genetic engineering and other technological advances, it looks like we stand a good chance of using ourselves more and more efficiently and finding that balance with our environment. If we still are of a mind where we want to address the issues of complexity that have been piling up since the agricultural revolution, then that will be the time to do so.
I think that your words expose an optimism that I can't share - but please, don't confuse my pessimism with a lack of hopeful purpose. The article you posted in response to Callan, even the specific quote you posted, counter this rather poignantly. "Each and every individual in such a species must eventually become capable of destroying their entire species at any time," in that any human might eventually have the chance to - every day it becomes easier and easier to do irrevocable damage. But I should keep this concise, least we stray from topical. Ignorance is most thick at the heart of empire.
I'll just say I'm a Prince of Atrithau who dreamed of participating ;)
Really, though, with the current way that the social order works in a lot of areas of our culture, one could participate in and accomplish very little or very much depending on one's level of confidence and the degree to which one speaks with authority -- the general way in which one goes about their business -- assuming one has the capabilities to fulfill said accomplishments in the first place.
I'm not sure that the first three questions can be answered without bias, but at least biased answers are still answers. I must (not really, but let's take it as a given) do something, after all!
Anonymity vs. agency? My personal life goals involve rocking the boat. Got to keep forming the network before we break out good ;).
It's a worryingt hought, that perhaps mastering the Darkness, if such a thing is even possible on any level, means one must eschew genuine experiences of relating to those who don't consider such things in their decision-making. Wanting or needing to relate would depend on one's goals. If someone needs to relate but can't, one must pretend, or choose different goals.
It's choosing the shortest path where not all paths are open -- one who walks the trackless steppe but doesn't know it. Perhaps the shortest path is among the ones available. If not, find a way to open it up (through acquiring more skills or pretending to relate to people, or whatever), or choose a non-optimal path. A Dunyain already has all (non-universally-impossible) paths available, the shortest necessarily being among those.
"I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. You know, I just... do things."
Buddhism gets bandied around quite a bit as a kind of functional embodiment of Blind Brain... but I picture Neil or experiences of agnosias.
I thnk it all comes down to perceived wants: those who question are those who are unsatisfied with the wants that the Blind Brain offers, and wish for a way to change the brain -- something it already does on its own somehow using sensory input both past and present to work it's magic -- on their own terms.
Hm... well, we've been talking about mitigating heuristics or bias with the Darkness as metaphor. The Blind Brain as a theory actually cannot be circumvented bar biological augmentation, we're just talking about pushing our awareness to its biological thresholds - the most we can do naturally is mushroom another type over the cortex, which is really, really likely. Chephalization is how the nervous system's been evolving the whole time.
How so? Weve outgrown out biosphere, or we as in our collective hunger as it currently is, has outgrown it? If the greenhouse effect is occuring, I'd agree with the latter.
They're some decent arguments that we're at carrying capacity - especially at the rate we're destroying our agricultural base worldwide - in some ways to do with climate change, though that wasn't what I was after. Food, man, FOOD!
I am reminded of an excerpt from the Ragged Trousered Philosopher's Talking to God..., found here: http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine discovering an algorithm, accessible to any intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than a thousand years. Your species needs to grow up considerably before you can afford to make that discovery. And if you don’t make it, you will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient species on level two.
[...]
The only ones who reach level two are those who learn to accept and to live with their most dangerous knowledge. Each and every individual in such a species must eventually become capable of destroying their entire species at any time. Yet they must learn to control themselves to the degree that they can survive even such deadly insight. And frankly, they’re the only ones we really want to see leaving their solar systems. Species that haven’t achieved that maturity could not be allowed to infect the rest of the universe, but fortunately that has never required my intervention. The knowledge always does the trick.
It is scary. As a species, we already have the technology to cause a mass extinction, and technology of that magnitude is only going to get more and more common. We can't really stop it, either. Calling it a day with technological advancements is asking a lot -- we are driven to progress. I just hope we come to understand things like consciousness post-haste, so that we can grow in ways that will minimize the chances of self-destruction.
+1 again for the article & thoughts.
So, how does humanity subvert its own basic nature? Maybe smoke and magic, to pacify our native impulses so we don't bridle at the yoke that orients us toward behaviors that will not hinder the safe, controlled perpetuation of the species? But isn't that another manipulation? And if we do successfully thwart our basic nature, will we still be human?
You talking about Joseph Campbell?
If I might interject, I don't believe that they remain human. Transhuman or posthuman are terms, neh? But yet we might argue that modern man is no longer human, as Homo sapiens sapiens has been traditionally grouped - we are most certainly cyborgs (you can literally live online to the point of having your groceries delivered, not to mention pacemakers, diabetics, dialysis).
+1 Ajokli. Doesn't mean that the Western Empire isn't imposing that constraint on the rest of the world ;).
-
We can't really stop it, either. Calling it a day with technological advancements is asking a lot -- we are driven to progress.
Who is? What technological advancement have you or I enacted in the last few years?
Corporate (and to a lesser degree, government) funding of technological advancement? I agree that's the case - but is it a question of whether the corporate lords seem unassailable, or whether it just seems as must be?
The Idea of Progress is a Western construct!!!!
I see. Such behavior is not innately human; agreed. For Western culture on the whole, though, barring catastrophe or the imminent threat thereof, I can't see anything but the continued effort of technological advancement. I felt it was so inherent, that I wrote that without thinking about it! It goes to show how difficult it can be for an individual to think in other terms.
The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.
Not that I've done a great deal of this, but I think one needs to write up codes and protocols more. Set up emperical measures and more importantly define the lifespan of the code or protocol - how many months or years it goes for. Set up markers how you are supposed to act, defined not in emotional wording (like 'in a proper way' - this isn't emperical) and measure oneself against ones code. The important thing about it having an ending is that if the code really grates against current circumstance, you might be able to tough it out. Otherwise to simply break with a code is to always break with codes, never adhering to any principles.
Otherwise I think we sway like kelp in the sea, this way and that, sometimes torn from our roots by the giddy waters around us. I don't think you can just make your mind somehow immune to that - to live is to go with a flow. The question is is it the flow you've decided upon to begin with? And how to measure that? And how long to go with that flow?
+1 for good advice. Having concrete goals is always said to help, but to make them empirically verifiable would remove doubt and make the goals more tangible. “And is not every task like a journey? Every accomplishment a destination? Every hunger a point of departure?”
As for determining whether the hungers and goals are my own, well, that gets back to the Darkness. The answer is "probably not" in all cases. I don't want to get stuck doing nothing, decrying every action (including doing nothing) as fraught with uncertainty and manipulation. But, I can't even be certain of that! :mrgreen:
As it stands now, even those committed to overcoming circumstance and making their thoughts their own realistically must begin with certain givens -- perhaps each person can think of a couple of reduced concepts or axioms to start off with. The Golden Rule, for example.
Turning back toward the books, do you think it is possible for more than one person to become a "self-moving soul"?
I've wondered about that - so what does that make of the dunyain order? Are they trying to make their own little god who'll look after them? Or take turns at the hot seat?
It would seem that there is a limit to the Darkness, and a limit to circumstance that one would have to master to become "self-moving". However, let's look at it as a certain configuration of the brain that one who attains such a state would have to have. If there is only one possible configuration, then would two people who have the same exact configuration really be different people?
-
The Idea of Progress is a Western construct!!!!
I agree. Oswald Spengler had the right of it (his Untergang des Abendlandes is a pretty fascinating read). The idea of linear progress, that everything must be constantly improving, is a part of the Western mindset.
(Compare this with the classical Confucian worldview, or the Hindu worldview. I've known a well-educated Indian dude who had a bit of a cultural schizophrenia because he was Western-educated and spoke about "history" and "progress" in a very Western sense, while his other views were so obviously informed by the Hindu conception of time, as a repeating cycle ("as many universes as the sand grains on the Ganges", and all that). This sort of cognitive dissonance tends to happen when Western concepts are preached as "the one and only objective truth" to non-Westerners who have very different cultural outlooks of their own).
-
Do not all societies strive to improve? Necessity leads to innovation, and thus complexity, if you believe Jared Diamond. Western society seems to have gotten stuck on a track of never-ending necessity. But even the cultures that see the least need for innovation see their needs fluctuate in availability, requiring them to adapt or perish. These cultures too have their own traditions and rituals, which all see change, however slow. The Western style of "improvement" and "innovation", likely for a myriad of reasons, expanded; and not in the quietest of manners.
Now, as it relates to mental wellness, Western culture seems to be at a disadvantage. The complexity has bolstered illusions (ego, etc.) which occlude one's perception of human-ness".
-
Do not all societies strive to improve? Necessity leads to innovation, and thus complexity,
Necessity obviously forces innovation, to some degree at least. Adapt or die. So the surrounding conditions are obviously a big reason why certain societies have evolved down the paths they did. My point wasn't about the harsh conditions that force innovation in a human society, though, but rather how Western society has a very unique view on innovation. The conception of human history as a narrow straight frame, where innovation is linear and everything is always progressing, is one of those Western ideas. (Which is often false; just look at the Classical world and the Dark Ages that followed).
Not sure if all societies strive to improve, though. Strive for more material comforts, definitely. But not always for superior knowledge or higher ideals (be they religious, philosophical, artistic, or scientific), though. There's a big difference between a civilization striving to reach the stars, and striving to make the next iPod or other consumer trash.
Jared Diamond.
A pop-historian, who has even admitted he writes books for kids. You raise good points in your post, don't get me wrong, it's just that I get annoyed when people name-drop Jared Diamond as an authority on history.
Western society seems to have gotten stuck on a track of never-ending necessity. The Western style of "improvement" and "innovation", likely for a myriad of reasons, expanded; and not in the quietest of manners.
Right. This is what Spengler called the "Faustian soul".
Now, as it relates to mental wellness, Western culture seems to be at a disadvantage. The complexity has bolstered illusions (ego, etc.) which occlude one's perception of human-ness".
How, exactly? I don't think any culture has more "mental wellness" than others. This is all incredibly subjective. You'll find mentally well and unwell people across the whole spectrum, in any culture on the planet.
-
I suppose by "mental wellness" I meant one's awareness of the world and their place in it as far as fulfilling basic needs. I'm not saying those participating in Western culture don't think about those things, but the introduced complexity and especially the scope of their culture would have repercussions on one's ability to be mindful. Thinking about it more, though, it is incredibly subjective, as you say.
-
Do not all societies strive to improve?
Who is? When did you or I last improve anything? :)
Necessity leads to innovation, and thus complexity, if you believe Jared Diamond. Western society seems to have gotten stuck on a track of never-ending necessity.
Western culture cultivates desperation, rather than engages necessity. Smell the tension of mortgages in the air, you can smell crops of desperation, ripening for the harvest!
What apparent necessity are we looking at? People gotta get to work? Because they fear for their job - because that's their only source of food and shelter, because you can just stake a place and grow crops and build shelter there because...authorities have declared they own the land! And will employ martial force if you attempt anything otherwise! When who owns land, like, ever? Perhaps 'of the land'...but owning the land?
That's just man made desperation for other men. It's not necessity.
Just on my soap box, banging off thoughts I've mulled over a fair few times! :) I could be wrong and we just overall strive to improve. I think a fair number of people do try to do that, to be sure.
As it stands now, even those committed to overcoming circumstance and making their thoughts their own realistically must begin with certain givens -- perhaps each person can think of a couple of reduced concepts or axioms to start off with.
That's a hard one! Will have to think about that!
The Golden Rule, for example.
What's the golden rule??
It would seem that there is a limit to the Darkness, and a limit to circumstance that one would have to master to become "self-moving". However, let's look at it as a certain configuration of the brain that one who attains such a state would have to have. If there is only one possible configuration, then would two people who have the same exact configuration really be different people?
Interesting spanner to throw into the works there!? Maybe you should pitch that to Scott on the three pound brain at some point?
Also in other news, I want your avatar to be in a platforming game! Every time I see it, I imagine her little legs moving like Mario's and dashing off to jump a chasm! I think it'd make a cool platformer!
-
It would seem that there is a limit to the Darkness, and a limit to circumstance that one would have to master to become "self-moving". However, let's look at it as a certain configuration of the brain that one who attains such a state would have to have. If there is only one possible configuration, then would two people who have the same exact configuration really be different people?
That's really good question - I for one don't think that it is possible for two people to have the exact same genetic predisposition nor the exact same circumstance from inception. But it's a neat thought experiment.
There's a big difference between a civilization striving to reach the stars, and striving to make the next iPod or other consumer trash.
I didn't get the feeling Meyna was writing about innovation within an economy of planned obsolescence.
-
Do not all societies strive to improve?
Who is? When did you or I last improve anything? :)
Even if it's not a conscious decision, simply existing is enough to be causing constant changes in the universe, however minor. Assessing which changes are improvements is a highly subjective topic, indeed.
Necessity leads to innovation, and thus complexity, if you believe Jared Diamond. Western society seems to have gotten stuck on a track of never-ending necessity.
Western culture cultivates desperation, rather than engages necessity. Smell the tension of mortgages in the air, you can smell crops of desperation, ripening for the harvest!
What apparent necessity are we looking at? People gotta get to work? Because they fear for their job - because that's their only source of food and shelter, because you can just stake a place and grow crops and build shelter there because...authorities have declared they own the land! And will employ martial force if you attempt anything otherwise! When who owns land, like, ever? Perhaps 'of the land'...but owning the land?
That's just man made desperation for other men. It's not necessity.
Just on my soap box, banging off thoughts I've mulled over a fair few times! :) I could be wrong and we just overall strive to improve. I think a fair number of people do try to do that, to be sure.
I'm sure I picked this up from somewhere, but I can't remember where: I'm guessing that the agricultural revolution led to an exponentially increasing population, which led to the need for more land/food/what have you, and this "culture of desperation cultivation", as you put it well, is what happened to spring up from the pile of possible reactions in order to tackle that challenge. Western culture could have taken vastly different routes -- some, perhaps, resulting in sustained growth without losing sight of the basics. Or, perhaps I've been reading too much of the Alternate History Wiki: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) :lol:
As it stands now, even those committed to overcoming circumstance and making their thoughts their own realistically must begin with certain givens -- perhaps each person can think of a couple of reduced concepts or axioms to start off with.
That's a hard one! Will have to think about that!
The Golden Rule, for example.
What's the golden rule??
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or variations thereof.
Such basic principles like that would give some sort of foundation not only to those trying to think and act with insight into the sway of their mind's currents, but to anyone!
It would seem that there is a limit to the Darkness, and a limit to circumstance that one would have to master to become "self-moving". However, let's look at it as a certain configuration of the brain that one who attains such a state would have to have. If there is only one possible configuration, then would two people who have the same exact configuration really be different people?
Interesting spanner to throw into the works there!? Maybe you should pitch that to Scott on the three pound brain at some point?
I'd love to hear his opinion on that topic at some point.
Heraclitus seems relevant here: "You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you."
Also in other news, I want your avatar to be in a platforming game! Every time I see it, I imagine her little legs moving like Mario's and dashing off to jump a chasm! I think it'd make a cool platformer!
My avatar is, in fact, from a game -- though not a platformer. It's a portrait of Refia from the Nintendo DS remake of Final Fantasy III as a scholar! http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Final_Fantasy_III_Jobs
-
It would seem that there is a limit to the Darkness, and a limit to circumstance that one would have to master to become "self-moving". However, let's look at it as a certain configuration of the brain that one who attains such a state would have to have. If there is only one possible configuration, then would two people who have the same exact configuration really be different people?
That's really good question - I for one don't think that it is possible for two people to have the exact same genetic predisposition nor the exact same circumstance from inception. But it's a neat thought experiment.
I've realized that there can be a difference between a state of relative self-moving and a state of absolute self-moving. One who is relatively self moving has mastered all emotions/circumstance/etc. that they would personally experience in their lifetime. Someone who lives in a very closed system has less stimuli to take in than a seasoned diplomat or an explorer of the universe. Two relatively self-moving people would have different experiences throughout their lives and would thus be different people with different brains.
Someone who is absolutely self-moving would have mastered all circumstance in the universe to ever exist, and I would say that two such beings would have probably have to be in the same state. Or, they would be different in a different way than the brain-states of two relatively self-moving beings.
There's a big difference between a civilization striving to reach the stars, and striving to make the next iPod or other consumer trash.
I didn't get the feeling Meyna was writing about innovation within an economy of planned obsolescence.
I suppose it could be any sort of change that someone out of the people that the change affects sees as improvement or innovation. Everyone exists and exerts change whether it's gathering a meal or designing an iPod :lol:
-
Even if it's not a conscious decision, simply existing is enough to be causing constant changes in the universe, however minor. Assessing which changes are improvements is a highly subjective topic, indeed.
Bit of a distinction between that and striving to improve? I presumed 'striving to improve' was a reference to what might be passed around regular communication chanels. As I understand what definition is passed around, it's not a fairly conservative one like the one you've given?
I'm sure I picked this up from somewhere, but I can't remember where: I'm guessing that the agricultural revolution led to an exponentially increasing population, which led to the need for more land/food/what have you, and this "culture of desperation cultivation", as you put it well, is what happened to spring up from the pile of possible reactions in order to tackle that challenge. Western culture could have taken vastly different routes -- some, perhaps, resulting in sustained growth without losing sight of the basics. Or, perhaps I've been reading too much of the Alternate History Wiki: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page :lol:
From what I've read, various english warlords drove people off their ancestral farmland and made them live in concentrated areas with only land for a house, not enough to grow crops. And then simply let the fear of starvation (as well as forces to stop them returning to their ancestral fields) make them work in the warlords fields. Now A: I read this once, but haven't done a series of double checks on it but B: If I were a warlord, I would do this very thing - it's a smart move and consolidates ones own power. As much as I think it's a smart move (once you put aside or never had to begin with certain values), I think it's true. I must check it some more, though.
The agricultural revolution was precipitated by warlords (well, generations on, who wore fancy wigs and white stockings) as a way to extend their own fortunes. It wasn't just some issue no one is to blame for/increasing population issue.
Those warlords continue today as the heads of various huge corporations, as well as the governments own martially enforced claims of owning land.
Anyway, skipping the radical claims the upshot is I'd recommend growing your own food to what extent you can. You can grow vegetables, like potatoes in a bucket, for example. Even just snapping off shoots from a sprouting potato and using that sprout to start growing some more potatoes) - it applies more leverage in the bargaining that goes on in regard to food prices. Sadly the people who bear the brunt of that first are the farmers - the middle man super market chains pad themselves against 'fluctuations'. But even growing a small amount of food for yourself will eventually prickle the chains (jeez, I just realised they even call themselves chains!).
Such basic principles like that would give some sort of foundation not only to those trying to think and act with insight into the sway of their mind's currents, but to anyone!
I think one Axiom is to relinquish world encompasing axioms! To relinquish the idea of making ideas that swollow up the whole planet and everyone has to obey it. Ideally instead ideas are limited to cover only part of the planet - thus allowing anyone who disagrees with the ideas to leave the area the idea covers. To give a choice (to some degree) about accepting the idea, instead of enforcing and idea onto everyone (even those to yet be born). A return to consent, instead of more of the normalised enforcement of ideas.
My avatar is, in fact, from a game -- though not a platformer. It's a portrait of Refia from the Nintendo DS remake of Final Fantasy III as a scholar! http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List ... y_III_Jobs
I think it begs to be also used as a graphic for a platformer - perhaps running through a many layered library, collecting books? It'd be cool! :)
-
Heh, my last axiom kinda cross references with a tweet by some guy on the tweeterwebs
Truth: Whatever you happen to agree with at any given moment projected across all space and time, until you change your mind.
As in the ceaseation of projection across all of the world. Though I was more refering to lifestyle and law design, I'll grant, so YMMV!
-
Even if it's not a conscious decision, simply existing is enough to be causing constant changes in the universe, however minor. Assessing which changes are improvements is a highly subjective topic, indeed.
Bit of a distinction between that and striving to improve? I presumed 'striving to improve' was a reference to what might be passed around regular communication chanels. As I understand what definition is passed around, it's not a fairly conservative one like the one you've given?
I should be more consistent and precise when talking about beings "making progress" and "improving", yes. Though, in any and all definitions, there is the Darkness.
I'm sure I picked this up from somewhere, but I can't remember where: I'm guessing that the agricultural revolution led to an exponentially increasing population, which led to the need for more land/food/what have you, and this "culture of desperation cultivation", as you put it well, is what happened to spring up from the pile of possible reactions in order to tackle that challenge. Western culture could have taken vastly different routes -- some, perhaps, resulting in sustained growth without losing sight of the basics. Or, perhaps I've been reading too much of the Alternate History Wiki: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page :lol:
From what I've read, various english warlords drove people off their ancestral farmland and made them live in concentrated areas with only land for a house, not enough to grow crops. And then simply let the fear of starvation (as well as forces to stop them returning to their ancestral fields) make them work in the warlords fields. Now A: I read this once, but haven't done a series of double checks on it but B: If I were a warlord, I would do this very thing - it's a smart move and consolidates ones own power. As much as I think it's a smart move (once you put aside or never had to begin with certain values), I think it's true. I must check it some more, though.
The agricultural revolution was precipitated by warlords (well, generations on, who wore fancy wigs and white stockings) as a way to extend their own fortunes. It wasn't just some issue no one is to blame for/increasing population issue.
Those warlords continue today as the heads of various huge corporations, as well as the governments own martially enforced claims of owning land.
Anyway, skipping the radical claims the upshot is I'd recommend growing your own food to what extent you can. You can grow vegetables, like potatoes in a bucket, for example. Even just snapping off shoots from a sprouting potato and using that sprout to start growing some more potatoes) - it applies more leverage in the bargaining that goes on in regard to food prices. Sadly the people who bear the brunt of that first are the farmers - the middle man super market chains pad themselves against 'fluctuations'. But even growing a small amount of food for yourself will eventually prickle the chains (jeez, I just realised they even call themselves chains!).
Great comments, Callan! Unfortunately, my vagueness has muddied the waters again. I meant the first agricultural revolution, circa 10,000 B.C.E.
But, then again, domesticated crops were probably just one in a line of technological revolutions which propels the never-ending necessities of some cultures.
Such basic principles like that would give some sort of foundation not only to those trying to think and act with insight into the sway of their mind's currents, but to anyone!
I think one Axiom is to relinquish world encompasing axioms! To relinquish the idea of making ideas that swollow up the whole planet and everyone has to obey it. Ideally instead ideas are limited to cover only part of the planet - thus allowing anyone who disagrees with the ideas to leave the area the idea covers. To give a choice (to some degree) about accepting the idea, instead of enforcing and idea onto everyone (even those to yet be born). A return to consent, instead of more of the normalised enforcement of ideas.
+1. I wish I had a response to this. Any way I look at it though, thinking about how to live -- whether it be in a personal, cultural, or global scope -- seems way too complex. R. Tweet Bakker phrases the problem quite well there!
My avatar is, in fact, from a game -- though not a platformer. It's a portrait of Refia from the Nintendo DS remake of Final Fantasy III as a scholar! http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List ... y_III_Jobs
I think it begs to be also used as a graphic for a platformer - perhaps running through a many layered library, collecting books? It'd be cool! :)
I'd play it! :D
-
Great comments, Callan! Unfortunately, my vagueness has muddied the waters again. I meant the first agricultural revolution, circa 10,000 B.C.E.
Ah!
But, then again, domesticated crops were probably just one in a line of technological revolutions which propels the never-ending necessities of some cultures.
Well, producing more children until you outrun the current capacity of your technology to feed them, true.
I guess it's hard to say, but it depends on whether during the agricultural revolution you raised, whether communities would stabilise in population. Or whether authorities provoked a culture of continual breeding (certainly todays economies of scale enthusiasts do). Or whether some communities stabilised, while others just kept breeding (in which case it's an uncomfortable question of genetic inclination). Also as a mid case, communities which stabilised, but then enviromental catasrophe happens and they cannot feed themselves, so they go raid other communities (then get used to raiding, because it takes ages to grow a crop and no one would respect them having land because they are raiders, etc).
I still question whether it's something we the common folk did, or it was something fostered by various institutional authorities (ala the scale of economy lovers today).
+1. I wish I had a response to this. Any way I look at it though, thinking about how to live -- whether it be in a personal, cultural, or global scope -- seems way too complex.
But how do you argue with a politician without a notion of such? Do politicians actually bank on people being unable to argue at such a level, to maintain their own power?
Do we complain to politicians, yet ultimately we just urge them to do us well, then leave it up to them? Because we can argue no overall life support plan? We make unhappy noises, but without a grander plan, we can go no further (like sorcerers in PON can't build anything or heal anything, complaining can't build a life support system, only detract from what someone else made) so we leave it to the politicians?
Certainly you'd think they'd teach you (or to be more exact, raise the idea in a coordinated way) the idea/question of how to live and various methods one might invent or emply, in school at some point. But they don't. Yet it's vital, isn't it? Funny.
R. Tweet Bakker
Heh! :D
My avatar is, in fact, from a game -- though not a platformer. It's a portrait of Refia from the Nintendo DS remake of Final Fantasy III as a scholar! http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List ... y_III_Jobs
I think it begs to be also used as a graphic for a platformer - perhaps running through a many layered library, collecting books? It'd be cool! :)
I'd play it! :D
I really aught to learn the unity programming language (it's kinda like flash, but 3d). But the learning always seems so very far from the enthusiasm end of the dealio! Still, it's a good idea to simply look for characters people already like, instead of trying to invent new ones, but ones they'll also like. Okay, I'm drifting into game design, so I'll stop...! :)
-
For the most part, we are very short-sighted and care not for long-term solutions to society's ills. What can politicians do but cater to these immediate demands? I still don't feel right thinking about societal change, though, as I am not so confident with the content of my thoughts. I wouldn't even know where to begin!
I dabbled in programming in university, and thought about making little adventure games. So far, I don't have the interest necessary to really get started :?