and what a sense of peace. its calm, blanketed days like these that make me realize there isn’t much i have to worry over, in this place.
it certainly makes me wonder what the big deal is.
why fight when you can have bliss?
why worry when you can have nothing?

which tangents me into an interesting point a psychology professor brought into light a while back. the Taoists were inconsistent. they favored non-existence over existence. why?
and at first i tried to fight against this, wanting to rally around the cause.
but i feel a more sophisticated answer is that in fact he was right. however, it was necessary, considering the audience favors existence, there needs to be balancing.
value both, fear neither?
well that’s my void-worship tangent for the day.
go find peace in the rain.

i’ve been thinking quite a bit lately on the subject of purpose. certainly, sinking into void and oblivion sounds nice. which raises the question, what exactly is wrong with going away?
lets assume a base line. let us assume basic Hobbsian, Newtonian mechanics. we know this is wrong, but it is very functional. in this let us assume the pure material, no souls, no “otherside,” no spirit.

is this comforting or horrifying? and more to the point, what is the approach we should take towards death in such a universe?

i personally find the answer to the first question to be both. in the end, nothing you do, and no suffering ever has a point. and as such there can be no ultimate purpose and so, no matter how badly you screw up, in death there is peace.

on the other hand such a universe seems so utterly small minded and petty, that it’s downright depressing if it exists.

now looking at death. we have no overarching truth to dictate morality. and so we can certainly establish Hobbsian rules, but in the end it’s mere “human rules.” so we can probably say no to homicide in general. but what about suicide? and what about other deaths? accidents? old age?

are they bad? or simply cause for mourning?

there is a big distinction there, which i would like to pull out.

i side towards the later option and will try to explain why, however, the English language limits me.

the issue here is mourning bad? and i would argue no. neither morning, nor the event that causes it have to be bad.

take the elderly person dying comfortably, surrounded by family. is this a bad death? considering we can’t avoid the outcome isn’t this most likely the best option? or at least one of them?

i would certainly say that is a good death. better to go that way than a myriad of others i can come up with.

does that make it less worthy of mourning by those around? no.
sadness and mourning in the end are more for the people surviving than the person dead.

and so this is good sadness. its hard to phrase such a thing, but i would argue that often the emotions we dislike are extremely beneficial.

running with this, i would argue that considering the misery of such a world as what we have stated, a cold, bitter, uncaring place, certainly one could argue that death would be sad, but good. similar to a dear friend moving away permanently to better options.

but i’ve made a very lovecraftian world.

what about ours?

begging a question here, namely how is our world defined?

On the whole humanity seems less rough and cruel this days, human rights becoming more valued, women’s rights becoming more global, etc.

Yet technology allows a depraved soul to be far more brutal than was previously possible. And we’re on the edge of new worries.

Nanotech promises some of the biggest possible changes. Altering the atom should prove powerful.

Genetic alterations should be easier soon, even now, designer babies are being advertised as “coming soon.”

And we have more and more end of times cults springing up.

2012 is of course the focus for a bit of said cults.

I find this belief rather annoying in that it’s based (usually) on the Mayan calendar. The remaining Mayans believe it’s going to end the fifth cycle of creation and bring about a renewal of their culture.

However, a variety of people in the US have grabbed on to the idea and say that a variety of things will happen. Either some sort of psychic “convergence” will come about, the world will end, or some other such event.

I find it unlikely that, even if the event will come about, it will be enough to alter what we are looking at. Even if western civilization falls, judging by the other ends the Maya predicted, something would remain.

It’s entirely possible that we’ll lose something and gain a bit, but I doubt we’ll stop.

Point being, we’d need a complete apocalypse to stop humanity.

That given we have a dangerous problem we’re all skirting.

We have nothing.

At least in a meaningful sense.

We have no goal.

Arguably we’ve tried this before and failed.

However, most of those goals have come from either someone claiming divine right, or someone claiming humanity is going that way no matter what.

Problem being we are just sort of getting lazy about it.

End of days cults, be they christian, pagan, or something else, are just in the end justifications for lazy righteousness.

“We don’t have to watch what we do, or fix anything, because it will all end soon.”

Given that attitude and the materialism of the west, long term goals seem unwieldy and over ambitious.

Why strive when you can comfortably wait for rapture amid potato chips and cable? Or the net if you prefer.

The moon landing was a peaceful way to fight and strive that did capture the nation.

We need something.

But it at the same time must acknowledge our new culture of flux.

Humanity, more and more, is embodying change.

And at the same time we’re attempting to stagnate ourselves. Materialism is, in the end, stagnant because there are physical limits to what we can produce.

Perhaps information is the solution?

It holds weird properties mostly because it is, truly unreal. What exactly is the knowledge that passes when we explain how to build a microchip? What is that? It replicates freely, and in a way is simply memory. But at the same time, we can transfer it infinitely.

It’s a strange non-substance when you start to think about it.

But that can’t be the only thing to hold on to.

And beyond that, I simply don’t know. What else is beyond?

We need dreams and myths again.

Hope is not what has been talked about this past year.

Hope cannot last on simple problems. Hope does not rest on the shoulders of one nation.

Humanity won’t last much longer, without some desire to survive the future.

In looking at said hoops though, it does appear that they are essentially needless more often than not. Usually they are arbitrarily scored and sorted, giving little reflection of the skills of the jumper, merely how well they performed on that single hoop.

Which I suppose truly does give a decent reflection of the way our lives are set up. at any given moment, leaping any given hurdle, any given human may look stellar or stupid, more often it’s chance rather than skill, though not always.

Stemming from that is the argument about social phobias. Why are we afraid of public speaking? Perhaps it’s the fear of appearing arrogant, the fear of being noticed, or even the fear of being critiqued. Most relevant here is perhaps the fear of failure in front of a large group.

It creates a record of our more embarrassing moments.

And so looking at our random hoops and in the interest of modesty preservation we are scared of increasing the likelihood that we will embarrass ourselves in public.

Where is this going?

Pain.

We all fear it to a degree.

And yet we often find the people who can experience it to be somehow glorious.

Staying with the public speaking theme for a moment. One of the major factors in a movement based around a central figure is how well they can manipulate the public, and one of the best ways to do that is to be able to walk out and speak to them.

It glorifies the speaker, makes them sacred.  And certainly part of that is simply the ability to stand in front of a crowd without showing signs of worry or embarrassment.

Certainly facing fear is a form of pain. And it is one we seem to value.

Side stepping here, consider physical pain now.

How many times has John Wayne been “shot” in the arm, only to stand back up and keep firing?

In how many scenes, in how many movies, does the hero character suffer some agony in order to save whatever valuable thing that has been jeopardized (love interest, home town, species, etc.). It’s a pretty common theme.

And consider in real life. Why do we glorify those who face pain over those who don’t?

Take fire-fighters, police officers, and soldiers. Any two of the same station, rank, etc. are going to be honored and looked up to about the same, baring other factors like looks, personality, or some other innate or practiced talent.

So we essentially have two cloned officers here, and now one takes a bullet in the shoulder, or is scorched in the line of duty, or some such.

He will inevitably be looked up to in higher regard than his once identical counter-part.

And something innate in us, or so it seems, says “yes, and?” meaning: well of course, that is how it should be.  “They risked a great deal to better society.”

And yet…

And yet, why?

What is it about a person experiencing pain that causes us to value them so much?

Obviously it isn’t simply the physical pain. Otherwise masochists would be gods in the eyes of all other mortals. In that, at least form my opinion, it seems to be in the mingling of pleasure with pain. There is something disconcerting to the human mind about mingling positives and negatives. We seem to want the world to be clear on that and when and example arises that contradicts our clear senses, we seem to find it disturbing.

So when a person finds such a discordant thing enjoyable, it really sets us off.

And I think there in lies the answer. We find the enjoyment of such pain terrifying, but the overcoming of it is something else.

The thought of enjoying the pain, is submission to, and, in a way, embracing of said pain. The soldier example is instead a breaking free of and triumphing over the pain.

That certainly seems a nice little sum up of the quandary I’ve created here.

And yet, I don’t really see them as that distinct.

Consider sports, all pain and glory.

“No pain, no gain.” certainly a stupid little phrase, but its still in our mind set.

And most importantly the protestant work ethic.

All examples of in the end masochism.

Surely not the sacred protestant work ethic?

How is it not masochism? How is it not worship of agony?

It doesn’t say “work so that you have enough to live happily and provide for your dependants.”

No it says “work hard, work damn hard, and don’t stop.”

A person who gets enough money to get by, lives quietly, and isn’t frivolous, is seen as lazy. Or at best, they are meek people who could probably get a better job if they tried harder.

Blame on them, state undesirable.

Instead the ideal is get your name as high as is possible on the score board. Because really, what else is money after the basics are provided for?

Suffer for points is, in essence the soul of our work ethic. Has it gotten us far as a country? Certainly. Has it made a lucky few into rags to riches stories? Obviously. But more often it is who you know and what chances happen your way. There are quite a few people who worked hard and diligently until they died and only have small sums to show for it.

My gripe about the “hard work alone makes a millionaire” ideal sneaks in again.  Sorry about that.

Back on track.

Ignoring the truth of the hard work ideal, some will say, “well what’s wrong with working hard?”

Straw man there.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it. I merely intend to point out that it is masochism.

Workaholic is a term that’s tossed around without any actual consideration of what it means. Sure someone is addicted to there work, we say it a lot.

But consider that.

Literally addicted to work.

High stress situations of accomplishment. These are extremely addictive.

Why? Because you feel like you actually accomplish something.

You have power.

There are many interesting implications of our jobs taking over our social lives to the degree they seem to be these days.

But certainly the most interesting is the dependency on them.

Anyone who’s ever been through college, especially if they worked during it knows that feeling. A sense of everything to do, and no time to do it in.

And to a degree hard work is like that. Especially at the esoteric office jobs which seem to have little real purpose. Lots of strange forms to be filled with no connection to the people whose lives are directly related to those forms and projects.

To suddenly stop, to be laid off, is surprisingly detrimental. You have withdrawals.

In free time there is no order. And without order, routine, everything feels slightly off. interestingly enough graduation day, for both college and high school (though especially college), often gives to the one receiving honors a sense of depression very similar to the type new mothers feel after giving birth.

A sense of loss.

And so it is with work. It is at once child and addiction.

And quite painful, in both stress and destruction of health.

Worship? Certainly, at least to a degree.

]]> http://logosixtab.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/interesting-fear-and-the-worship-of-pain/feed/ 0 logosixtab http://logosixtab.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/missing-rain/ http://logosixtab.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/missing-rain/#comments Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:45:19 +0000 logosixtab http://logosixtab.wordpress.com/?p=85 ]]> It doesn’t rain much here, not surprisingly. And when it does, it tends to be after a day or two of low-pressure grayness, which induces headaches and grogginess.

Of course when it does burst it’s wonderful but that’s gone all to soon.

It’s interesting to me how many people react negatively to it.

So many here complain about the weather when it’s rainy, even though without it water is really rare.

You can’t justify green grass yards without rain.

And yet many here gripe about it when it pours. And here I am still miserable in the sun.

Which makes me question the whole distance makes the heart grow fonder thing.

I’ve always loved the rain and even when I lived in it, preferred it to the sun.

So maybe it applies to me.

But a large chunk of the people here seem to hate it.  And it’s rare still…

Maybe I’m looking at it all the wrong way, which knows.

There’s something peaceful and romantic about the gray mist, the slow drizzle, and the deep downpour.

The Daodejing calls the Tao the “mysterious female” and I suppose there something to be said about mist and rain in a similar way.

The gray hides form and shape, playing with curiosity and wonder.

In sun, there is simply truth.

And while many argue that truth is best, I still maintain it is extremely over-rated, and quite possibly improbable.

I prefer mystery.

There’s something about being buried and able to hide away from the world that you don’t get in warmer climes.

Of course on the rare occasion it snows here, everything shuts down completely. But that’s so rare as to barely count.

And I have to wonder on that desire.

I think there’s something in humanity that needs inefficiency at times.

We need to be able to stop and hide.

And rest.

I think if there is one thing that is undervalued in our society, its probably humanity itself.

But I do believe rest is pretty high up on the unappreciated list.

They say our ancient ancestors only had to work the equivalent of twenty hours a week in today’s system. Of course that was more spread out and less concentrated, but it certainly makes you wonder about us. Of course I’m not sure how accurate that is.

But still…

We’ve lost a lot of the sense of meaning once provided by the unknown.

And it seems some of the peace of mind.

I’ll be the first to argue we’ve gained a lot.

But how do we bring back some sense of peace?

And what, in truth, is the ideal state of humanity?

And in conforming to some ideal state, do we have to become inhuman?

Consider that many have claimed it’s human nature to compete and essentially be selfish.

Ayn Rand based her whole philosophy of this assumption. Let the selfish people be selfish and eventually everyone will counter-act everyone else. (Simplified to the extreme I know).

But I disagree. Not even with the premise, but with the conclusion.

To say humanity is innately mean-spirited and selfish is fine. But why does that mean it MUST be that way?

The problem with it is simply to justify said actions keeps us as we are.

Problem?

Seems to be.

To wax Hobbsian here even if mans natural state is “nasty, brutish, and short” why should we continue in such?

And yes, I would argue our nature currently is nasty, it’s certainly brutish very often. And it is, arguably, short.

While I dislike the idea of forcing (in the manner of mobs and government officials) individuals along a certain path, there is certainly a difference between forcing along and discussing with.

In the end I stand by the Taoists.

The world will be as it will, though to be a small part of it is to move with it.

I say we aren’t bound by human nature, now that we can acknowledge it.

Maybe stepping beyond “human” is a good thing.

And maybe we’ll find time to sleep beneath snow.

Well quite a bit obviously.

And most importantly, at least in my mind, we have changed the view of the US to the rest of the world.

The “go it alone” mentality is being lost.

And despite the glory of that image in the public media, it’s one we need to lose.

We’re too big of a species, fighting over a rather tiny rock.

The glory of violence, taking on the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. There all images we need to let go of.

We need the defender, the man who holds fast, not the raging warrior who charges an army.

We need to strengthen ourselves as a nation, play it defensive for a bit.

And unify.

Get people like michael savage, anne coulter, (I apologize to any conservative readers, I know there are liberal versions of these two, however I don’t hear of them as much so I can’t name them.) and perhaps even myself, though I make no claims to being big name, out of the main news system.

Dissent is necessary, in the way criticism. However, now we need to acknowledge that we can’t swing to far to either side.

Religion can’t rule our minds, and pure fact-finding science can’t build policies. We need balance.

We need to stand fast, close ranks, and get back up.

And we can.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, as might be noticed. Instead I’m what might be considered and anti-theorist.

With it be Ikes’ Reptilians or some sort of illuminati, I find them highly unlikely. Also in this category fall the “Jewish Conspiracy” mentioned by many Nazi’s and now quite a few fundamentalist Muslims, the “feminist conspiracy,” the “left wing conspiracy,” the “right wing conspiracy,” etc. ad infinitum.

Why?

Because quite frankly if any of these groups were actually as powerful as those afraid of them believe, the world would bet a lot more orderly. Maybe not “better” or more ethically “good” but certainly more orderly and geared toward producing benefit for the “masters.”

And I don’t deny that there are secretive groups that hold power, even though the public isn’t aware of them.  Of course there are some shadowy forces with power backing them.

However, if they ruled the world and were doing brain-washing, mind control, innocence control, etc. then you’d think they’d have accomplished a lot more by now.

Are there “cloak and dagger” politics? Of course.

But this sort of master group ruling the world seems to be more of a fear reaction than a possible entity.

A fear reaction to the world itself.

We see ourselves and see what is done by other people. We have little way of explaining the horrible things that people do and so must assume there’s something “wrong” with them. I would argue this is where that fear comes from.

“They’re being manipulated by the Jews.”

“The Reptilians genetically altered them.”

“It’s the high illuminati messing with the stock market.”

“Feminists and Gays are corrupting the US and that is the reason for 9/11.”

All of these sorts of statements are far less probable than what seems to have happened in any given case.

Could there be hidden acts intertwined with any given example? Certainly.

However, most of that sort of sentiment tends to have a similar general sentiment:

There is something wrong with those things, so they are not people. That’s why they do things that normal people wouldn’t. And of course if the “evil ones” weren’t corrupting them then they might have been normal people.

This seems to be a reaction to the simple, and relatively evolutionist idea that, well, people do bad stuff.

You don’t really need evil overlords for that; often the action itself had some easy enough reason to figure out.

One I heard lately that the reason aspartame was being allowed to poison us, and the research suppressed (obviously the guy didn’t like aspartame…), was because the Reptiles needed to cull a bit of the human herd.

Even if aspartame were poisonous, wouldn’t it make far more sense that some people realized that if they kept its danger an unknown they could make a fortune? It’s a pretty standard practice even outside of food. It’s a much simpler answer but it moves the guilt to the “Reptilians” from people.

Often these are justified with “they make people do things that no human would ever do to another.” it sort of a safety blanket.

But consider the Millgrim study. Roughly 65% of people were willing to deliver what they believed was a fatal jolt of electricity to a nice old Irish school teacher (who had long since faked dying sounds). Of course no one was actually hurt (and there are many other confirming studies), but it goes to show that under pressure and authority people will do nasty things. And often they’ll deflect the blame to whomever was issuing the orders.

But the conspiracies allow us to keep the fiction, by deflecting it up to a higher authority.

The view that no one is in control of the world and it is as chaotic as it appears is the less “safe” view I suppose, though I certainly prefer it’s realism.

Not just in a “what have we invented?” sort of way, but also literally. By that time many of the new “things” will have been around long enough that we will see the effects.

For example, genetically modified foods. The argument really isn’t against them per say, the argument is against how little evidence there is of their safety. No one has really studied what happens when humans consume the creations. Yes they appear okay, but are there long-term issues?

Also children on anti-depressants. The UK has found a serious link between many of the common ones prescribed to children and suicide rates.

We all remember Vioxx, but whose to say many of the current drugs aren’t simply slower acting? The FDA isn’t as careful as it once was.

And of course the odd stuffs in our food, all the preservatives and colorings, often from petrol and various rocks. Not too mention the under questioned sweeteners.

Creepy stuff certainly, but it’s not about to go away.

Our system demands it, and it is one of the more interesting issues with straight capitalism.

How can markets self regulate when profit is the first concern?

Many of the issues above would lead consumers to avoid the products, but few people are even remotely aware of them.

And deregulation would only remove the bit of regulation that keeps us as safe as we are.

A laissez-faire capitalist system requires perfect transparency on the part of everyone in the system. Since when has that ever been the case?

It took forever for tobacco companies to acknowledge the product was toxic.

And we’re quite possibly seeing a similar situation with all sorts of things, a good example being aspartame. It’s been long debated, with many claims that it causes cancer. What is the “truth” of the matter? I certainly can’t tell you.

That being said, what will humanity be like?

We certainly can’t go for what The Omnivore’s Dilemma guy argued for. That being a reliance on locally grown, completely organic and natural food.

Why not?

Well have you looked at how many people there are?

Most places simply cannot support their population.

Los Angeles, Atlanta, and New York are obvious examples.

But what about Denver and Boulder Colorado, when the soil isn’t that great?

New Mexico is another good example. They have extreme water and fertile land issues; with no way they could support the population of Albuquerque alone, (even excluding Rio Rancho).

At the same time there are new and interesting issues popping up, such as the gluten intolerance in Italy.

What caused it? I have no idea.

But we certainly have an interesting solution possible. How about a type of wheat that the gluten intolerant could eat? Entirely possible to design, and it wouldn’t ruin the taste of the noodles.

But at the same time assume that goes haywire. We fiddle with something and a large percentage of humans are allergic to the wheat.

This is a doomsday scenario being thrown about by the naysayers. Extreme? Yes.

But at the same time one worth pondering.

Why listen to conspiracy theorists?

Well we tend to rush things.

Consider the atom bomb.

We couldn’t have bombed Japan a third time. Or at least not right away.

We had the know-how, but had yet to construct a third weapon.

Why? A large chunk of the reason is we were rushing through the process attempting to get them out there. Our scientists weren’t even entirely certain it would explode as needed.

Similar problem here. Which is more productive?

Something well designed, thoroughly researched and proven to be safe that takes twenty years to get to market?

Or a product with a middle amount of design, with very little actual safety research pulled together in five years?

Fifteen extra years of sales is a lot. This is a good motivator, especially if the product has no obvious side effects.

Consider aspartame again. Let us assume simply for this example that it is actually dangerous over long-term use. THIS IS NOT PROVEN, so don’t say I’m making claims. I’m merely using this as an easy to understand hypothetical.

Consider how much money has been made off of it. Now lets say next year it is found that twenty years of consecutive aspartame consumption of at least one 8 oz. soft drinks worth per week leads to a greatly increased risk of dangerous brain tumors.

I’m definitely stacking the deck against the product here. But considering the stuff was created in 1965, even with such health issues the product has given huge rewards to its creating company, even if they have to pull it from the shelves.

Now consider the alternative. It’s not dangerous in the least. No study is found next year. Which option is more appealing, five years of slap-bang creation? Or twenty years that proves it is safe?

The amount of pure income of the thrown together approach is obvious, and why we need watchdogs.

But most of those, especially the FDA don’t have much bite.

Lots of rambling, true. Is there a point? I hope so.

I guess it’s this. What do we have to look forward to? And I’m asking opinion here as well as musing.

Will we have issues with bodies not decomposing from all the preservatives we consume?

Will we suffer a Lovecraftian fate with all of the strange stem cell creations we’ve made? And I don’t mean the medical research, I mean the foodstuffs. The recently made a steak from essentially cow stems cells blend with fish genes (extreme oversimplification there mind you). Could we have Shogoths roaming soon?

Now mind you I fall more on the side of biotech and the scientists in this. I’m simply against the deregulation and the speed at which we produce.

That certainly makes the whole endeavor less profitable though. And really what dictates our lives more than profit?

There is, of course another possibility. We may get the corporations under control, and just might end up making this world habitable for a truly astounding number of people though these above-mentioned technologies.

Listen to the atheists? Get stuck in a Hobbsian mechanical mess?

Listen to the Christians, Muslims, or Jews? End up in a slavish society based on worship of an irrational monster?

Admittedly I’m playing straw man here, but it is still worth pondering.

When we step back and look at ourselves, what do we interpret? What would we see?

And what do we want that to actually be?

How would we like to be seen, by others and ourselves?

We’ve lost our myths and flawed gods.

We’ve lost our sense of mystery along with our belief in spirituality.

Even the western religious set seem far more keen on heaven and hell being extremely removed from the physical world. There is no more a sense of a “spirit” world, to be glanced if you look out of the corner of your eye.

While some might argue that our new mechanical religions hold greater power than the old animism (and in many respects they are right) I do believe something has been lost.

There was a great deal of cruelty in the old shamanistic paths, however, there is a great deal of cruelty in what has replaced them, so that hardly is a good reason to abandon what is positive.

So after all this blustering, my point?

We need curiosity, a willingness to let go of that which does not help us, and a willingness to accept what does help us.

And a need to let go of our opinions, attempting to fashion a world that seems workable, not one artificially defined by our ideas.