Messages

Is your existential angst useful to you? Try pragmatism: realise your solipsism is meaningless and reject it.

Reject it because it doesn't make sense? Or reject it because its, according to you all, "hurting me/making me feel angst?"

I see it as a possible (not plausible) way of describing my existence. Disregarding it would only serve the purpose of rejecting the scientific method AND pragmatism. I have found that some ideas contradict this existential description. But that doesn't mean that it is absolutely incorrect. If anything, I should remain agnostic on it all, and only delve deeper into the ideology to learn more about myself. This whole discussion, resulting from this idea of Solipsism, has introduced me to a plethora of possible conditions I may have, and has resulted in numerous ways in which I could alternatively view myself as a human.

It has been, overall, destructive and constructive - Both of which I describe in the most positive connotation. I am uninjured by this temporary ideology, much like the other infinite ideologies I will/have adapt/adapted. Function is my purpose, science is my method when I'm conscious of the effort.

My problem is that I speak with unjustified certainty. But that is because I've been taught to speak this way. I'm working on it. That is what confuses you, I think.

The first few pages were interesting, but the inside of your head bores me now.

It bores me, too. That's why I read stuff like Crowley and RAW. That's also why I like this forum.

It can also lead to shit like the Leopold & Loeb case... so, you might wanna watch that.

I try to "watch" every consciously comprehensible action or thought that goes through my head that stands out as abnormal. I apply a hypothesis to past events, actions, or/and or thoughts. If it's dangerous/counter-productive, then I make a will-full effort to recognize and remember the negative connotation to that action, in an attempt to limit that thought or action.

For example, in realizing I had a predisposed urge to control [relationships/situations that weren't any of my business], I proposed the idea that I may be predisposed to dominant behavior over many things in my life (past and present). I held this up against long-term memories, going all the way back to my early childhood. Many specific events immediately stood out, so it seemed I was right. When looking at other less specific events with this new perspective, I decided it was next to certain. It was so blatant, in hindsight, that it appeared to me to be genetic. Regardless, the urge was real, and I didn't approve of it. So now I consciously and linguistically "shine light on it" every time it surfaces. The effects of the urge have been reduced significantly over the past month.

Does this all seem really pretentious to you? I feel pretentious typing it out. Maybe I'm just over-complicating something everyone else already does. I've never heard anyone put it into words before, so I have no idea. ^

So this thread is basically angst?

TGRR,
Doesn't get it.

Angst? No. I'm quite satisfied with everything at the moment.

I don't really see biology as something "outside of technology" It is technology. It's self replicating nano-machines. I think most people don't think of it as tech cos we never invented it. That'll probably change once we optimise it and start really programming new shit with it.

I think you're right.

Do you really find that "SHEEPLE/FREEPLE" or similar is a useful model to use to interact with the world? Because it sounds like an ego trip.

I tend to see every person on the planet as a God. I'm not sure, though, if this is just my way of being "OK" with everything that humans do, good and BAD. It reduces unwanted internal conflict, but it borders Nihilism. That is one of my worries.

This is bad signal.

Agreed. Sounds robotic, don't you think? I don't like it much, anymore.

What is happening here is that PoFP is not here to debate a point.  He is here to STATE a point, then duck out of anything resembling a debate.  In short, he's here to preach.

I'm here to throw around and discuss ideas and perspectives so that I may broaden mine. I am completely willing to debate. However, I WILL NOT assert that my OPINION on anything is correct.

I can understand why you'd see some preacher in him, but rather i see it as masked insecurity.

I think hes just confused, whenever any point of his stance is poked, it crumbles, so yeah.

THIS. No conclusion on anything that I ever come to, EVER, is stable enough to stand against outside ideas. My view of everything is constantly changing. But I'm ok with that.

At the risk of unduly labeling, he seems a little wrapped up in the whole "By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe" mindset.

Sounds about right. But I say this often ^

"Assert too boldly" indeed.

He doesn't seem all that concerned about how his actions impact others.

Somewhat accurate, although, that is something I have to think about.

You want immunity from consequences? Please explain what you mean by that, and how such immunity would facilitate freedom for anyone else but yourself?

Immunity from consequences, as I see it, can come in a few forms. Either decisions and actions are ignored completely by everything else in existence (I don't like this idea), or the consequences of decisions or actions don't affect future action (Everything is action, NOT reaction). That, as I see it, is separation from predisposition, and as a result, a separation from environmental/societal influences.

There's a strong core of callous solipsism going on in him, based purely upon his writing in this thread.

Yes. These are ideas I am throwing around in my head, and as Paes stated, I "doth assert too boldly." - Story of my fuckin life.

Nihilism is dismal.  Its about as edgy as a bus station bathroom.  Just saying.

Yeah, but there's not much else at the moment.

I feel so limited by language and the nervous system. I can't find a way to explain or show you what I think with maximum accuracy.

You are language and the nervous system. Do you believe that you have thoughts that are not constrained by language, resulting in your being unable to express them with it? Are there beliefs you have that are not represented internally by language?

Not beliefs, just thoughts. Though, I realize, I'm only taking written/spoken language into account. Language gives my perceptions structure. Maybe I'm using the wrong language. Or maybe I'm trying to "structuralize" something with language that isn't meant to be structured. Something so inclusive, it envelops language, the nervous system, and everything else. It seems to be something so "big-picture" I can't even use anything "in the picture" to describe it. Even that analogy falls apart. Everything in a picture makes up the picture. I don't have every detail of the picture, and so I can't show you the picture.

Is there anything bigger than me, if I am language and the nervous system? That is the question. Everyone who claims to have an answer is full of shit. But assuming they're full of shit makes you no different than them. Oh, well that makes things easy. Now I'm back to where I started - Not giving a fuck.

How do you know that the person is a friend?

I'm not about to propose an economy of favours whereby each nice thing you do is expected to earn you a favour token to be converted into future favours, but if you're doing nice things for people and they do not do nice things for you, they're probably not a very good friend.

You also rely on other people to crowdsource your search for knowledge, your understanding of which foods are safe to eat, the actual sourcing and production of those foods, the maintenance of the roads and the electrical infrastructure, the design and manufacture of the computer that lets you inform the internet that you want to be 'purely you' as if there is a single part of you that is not the result of your interaction with culture.

I guess the friends are the people who do return those favors when it's important. But for the people who don't, I won't use that against them. I will simply know that I can't call upon them to back me up. But there are people I care about that I don't expect anything from. Part of me will always put them first.

I'd like to think that there's something that is ME that is not the result of my interactions with culture. But I guess that's getting into personal belief systems - Something I don't want to have. I feel so limited by language and the nervous system. I can't find a way to explain or show you what I think with maximum accuracy.

I figured, becoming "purely me," if there is such a thing, would be the transcendence I hoped for.

Fair enough.  However, several of your individual opinions, which don't make you a Libertarian, are shared by the Cato Institute.  So, hopefully you'll understand my confusion.

I can see the appeal of such opinions... but ultimately they are rather utopian.

And that's where our fundamental differences in perception arise. I don't want you to agree with me, I just want you to understand my perspective. What you do with my perspective now that you've understood it, has nothing to do with me. Now that I've achieved my goal of this discussion, I am happy.

Oh, sorry.  I must have mixed you up with a rugged individualist who was proposing the Free Market as a desirable choice earlier on this page. 

My mistake.

I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself.

What's desirable for me has nothing to do with you or anyone else. I want the system to be balanced (Close to what we have now, minus inherently broken legislation that has been implemented) between Free-market and Socialism, as does anyone else who's looked at economic theory in the past 100 years. But that's my opinion, and my opinion doesn't mean shit. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm just not agreeing to follow all restrictions or procedures because some of them aren't in my best interest (Because some of them are broken).

Do you really find that "SHEEPLE/FREEPLE" or similar is a useful model to use to interact with the world? Because it sounds like an ego trip.

I'm finding it hard to make that connection. So you're probably right.

Ayn Rand was apparently surprised by the same information.  Nobody else really was.

That's funny. I thought Ayn Rand was completely against all Leftist restrictions. I'm not. She wanted to ensure that America and the rest of the world was under a free-market economy. I don't. She sees all restrictions on the economy by the government as wrong, as do all other Libertarians. I don't. So how am I like them?