individualism, freedom and the Machine

[Triple Zero]

ok, i just had a very interesting discussion with my girlfriend. i explained her about LHX's origin of the lie -- and even though i still don't know why that concept is so significant or what he was aiming for, it is one hell of a starter for interesting discussions

she (an astronomy student) is currently following an extra-curricular course about greek mythology (and no, Eris isn't covered in it, they can hardly treat all greek mythology in 12 weeks time ).

she told me about how the concept of human individuality is only something of the past few centuries, and i think this is a very important concept that deserves to be gone deeper into. she told me that she learned that in ancient Greece people were what other people thought of them, and no more than that. and only in the Renaissance people started actually thinking about themselves, attributing paintings and art to themselves "I made that".
and this is were it gets back to the us/them idea. people get more and more individualistic over time, but this is a self-perpetuating circle. the individualism is bound to make people do things other people won't like, which is when the other people group the one people into groups that roughly do the same thing they don't like, and they distance themselves from them, but those others want to be individualistic so they distance themselves from their peers, and so you get all kinds of scenes and groups splintering until we're all individuals.

maybe this is freedom, but we're all in here together and if we care only about ourselves, we can't properly control/steer this Machine/Wheel that we're all part of and it gets out of control.

there you have it, another solution as another paradox.

freedom is slavery

[LMNO]

Wait... How could they prove how people thought about themselves in ancien greece?

And why didn't they apply Aristotles "is of identity" to themselves?

[AFK]

I can see this to a certain degree.

And perhaps the information age can be seen as a double-edged sword in this trend in individualism.

In one sense, the information age has brought together individuals who are spread out geographically but, philosophically are more in common than those in their immediate or "IRL" geography.

At the same time, some people may isolate themselves from the people in their "IRL" geography in favor of being "together" with those in their philosophical geography who are very far away.  Thus, reinforcing the individualism in the real world.  People not talking face-to-face anymore, etc. 

[Triple Zero]

Wait... How could they prove how people thought about themselves in ancien greece?

by the way they talk about people in most myths and stories of that time.

And why didn't they apply Aristotles "is of identity" to themselves?

i dunno what that means, but probably because most of the people back then couldn't read and had never heard of Aristotle nor his ideas?

.. but seriously, individuality is something people couldn't quite afford back then. it was only an option for the rich but even they didn't use it much. they also had a job to do for the community, and that was to rule them.
also take pre-renaissance paintings as another example, they weren't signed. they were made for the Church. it was only in the renaissance that art became an expression of individuality.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm of the firm opinion* that the very first abstract thought that anyone ever thunk was "I am" That's the dawning of consciousness right there.

*firm opinion = so far I've never heard an argument against. Soon as I hear a good one I'll change it.

[Triple Zero]

what do you mean by "abstract thought"? do you mean a thought that is not "about anything"? because "I am" is definitely about something IMO.

for me, consciousness is self-reference.
if by "abstract thought" you mean self-referential thought, then i kind of follow you.

"I am" is the simplest self-referential thought, though that does not necessarily indicate it would be the first (it would be quite likely though)

.. funny that you come here, because just before she started about individuality we were on the subject of consciousness and self-reference (that a monkey would not be smart enough to think "i caused this to happen because of a mistake in communication"), which i left out.

[LHX]

is individualism a result of not wanting to be a part of other things?

you develop a individual identity when you see foul shit going on as a way to separate yourself from the foulness?


"dont get this one here confused with those ones over there"

[P3nT4gR4m]

what do you mean by "abstract thought"? do you mean a thought that is not "about anything"? because "I am" is definitely about something IMO.

for me, consciousness is self-reference.
if by "abstract thought" you mean self-referential thought, then i kind of follow you.

"I am" is the simplest self-referential thought, though that does not necessarily indicate it would be the first (it would be quite likely though)

.. funny that you come here, because just before she started about individuality we were on the subject of consciousness and self-reference (that a monkey would not be smart enough to think "i caused this to happen because of a mistake in communication"), which i left out.

What I mean by abstract thought is thought for the sake of thought. Animals think but, according to psychologists they do not do so self consciously. Their brains merely process information then relay responses to the central nervous system. This is what I would call "non-abstract thought" ie. a closed circuit, automatic process. By thinking "I am" we create an layer of abstraction and the rest follows from this foundation.

I'm probably using shit words to describe this but I'm sure you'll get what I mean regardless. Point is I disagree with the OP.

[LHX]

so (just making a few connections from this thread):

what it looks like we have here is one of the foundations for the problems man faces and the individual man faces

we have "I am"
but
"We arent" what we think we are

aka
we arent what we have been led to believe we are

the step from "I am"
to becoming a being with illegitimate fears and unachievable desires is a huge step <--- we arent actually that, but many people have been taught to have illegitimate fears and desire things that dont exist


this type of fear and desire has led to the development of a exaggerated sense of self importance (the tendency is for a person to believe that they are more important than they are, rather than less important than they are - tho both situations do occur)


connections connections connections

[P3nT4gR4m]

The demiurge grew like a tumour on the arse of duality and shat the ego into existence. Bury the whole fucking lot or enjoy it. That choice is all you really have.

[LHX]

The demiurge grew like a tumour on the arse of duality and shat the ego into existence. Bury the whole fucking lot or enjoy it. That choice is all you really have.

i dont buy that kind of certainty anymore

isnt 'explore it' a option?

[Benaclypse]

Well, reality is always going to be a myriad of paradox of sorts, or maybe it isn't, or maybe it is and isn't at the same time.  I actually made my own cyber church dedicated to the subject of paradox at one time, but then let it die when I stopped bothering with it, so that doesn't exist anymore, even though it does, and maybe I'll make something of it again someday.  ::shrugs::  Individuality and homogeny are two sides of a scale that must be balanced, or the paradoxical scale will tip over and there will be neither (and both).

[Triple Zero]

ok so i've been rolling over the issue a littlebit last night, and maybe i could approach it from another angle.
"think for yourself, schmuck"
is this really such a good idea?
because if everybody would only think for themselves, it would be kinda hard to keep this whole civilisation/society/culture thing going. since it's all rather complicated and we're reaping the benefits of structures that are much larger than ourselves, you have to have cooperation and especially some people to keep a birds-view perspective on things.
now i know what the standard response to this is, so i'm gonna cut it short here: "but if people would REALLY think for themselves, they would take that into account as well, because in the end it is in their interest as well". this approach is called Ethical Egoism in ethics-philosophy (this type of Egoism is also an important concept in satanism, which is partly/kind of where the whole "think for yourself" line came from). now please don't get me wrong with "Egoism" i don't mean anything bad or negative, that's just the name that's given to this type of ethics. it IS in fact one of the most "free" forms of ethics that exist out there (definitely moreso than utilitarianism or Kantianism).
as with most philosophical theories, there is also a whole lot wrong with it, but it may be interesting to explore that another time.
the thing i wonder about, can you really really expect people in general to think for themselves in such a way? as Z3 already said it's easy to slip up. one moment you are, the other you aren't. and we are actually trying.
so is it in any way reasonable to expect people to think for themselves so thoroughly? is this actually possible?
isn't this "thinking for oneself" already going on more and more (as i tried to point out with individualism and history, but as also somebody mentioned in Appletalk as a more recent development), and is it not heading in the wrong direction as well?

what is happening with humanity??? we are heading somewhere. not sure if i'm gonna see it in my lifetime though.

on the one hand it seems we're all splintering apart, and on the other hand we're being grouped by the dozens as cogs in a huge Machine? are we already Sticking Apart? or the wrong way around?

[LMNO]

2 things:

1.  Are you seriously saying that in ancient Greece, people walked around without a sense of personal identity?  I'm not buying it, especially with the argument "because of the way they talked about people in myth."

2.  It's not "Think of yourself," it's "think for yourself".  That is, question everything, don't rely on appeals to dubious authority, come to your own conclusions.  Obviously, some people will come to the same conclusions, and join together.

It's not about a million people creating a million societies, it's about not being controlled, except by yourself.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Thought's should be decided on. Otherwise they are deciding for you. "they" being the thoughts, not the archetypal "them" although maybe that's where that meme came from in the first place.