[What Came Before]

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

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

[What Came Before]

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!

[What Came Before]

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.

[What Came Before]

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.

[What Came Before]

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.  :|

[What Came Before]

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?

[What Came Before]

The Idea of Progress is a Western construct!!!!

[What Came Before]

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 .

[What Came Before]

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?

[What Came Before]

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).

[What Came Before]

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".

[What Came Before]

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.

[What Came Before]

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.

[What Came Before]

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!

[What Came Before]

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.