Perfection & Actualization

[Auburn]

The quest for happiness - the primary obsession of all humanity. It defines the entirety of human existence - it's history, cultures, wars, arts, religions and deities - and has rattled the foundations of the world; shaping it into what it is today.

Every myth and god man has created is an attempt to answer the one fundamental question by claiming - This is the way to Happiness. Millions of different paths are fabricated as their imaginations attempt to claw their way up to completion, to actualization. Nay, there are billions of paths - for every human is a living testament, a one man religion with it's own fantasy of what is perfection.

​

Perfection
The desire for an end to all suffering, for the elimination of impurities of character, for a purging of selfishness, lust and sin - are all futile efforts stemming from a misunderstanding of one very simple truth. Man is perfect as he is.

Just as a lizard is perfectly adapted to it's terrain, and how fish have fins to swim, and lions hunt prey to eat - yet none can blame them for what they do - the human body is no different. Every instinct and natural inclination we have is sinless and part of our adaptation for our own preservation. Our genetics blueprint carries within it the key to our perfection, for it defines perfection for us. It alone understands what is truly "right" and "wrong" for it defines those terms for us, in relation to us, and promises to grant euphoria upon those who abide by it and listen to it's voice.

Misconceptions
Even pain and suffering are a part of the body's function, preserved within our coding for our own good, and a necessity for avoiding harm. Hatred, vengeance, jealousy, lust, anger - all sacred emotions which carry no guile in themselves, for they are in place for a reason and exist as an aspect of the body's complete wellness.

Whosoever desires to eliminate from humanity any aspect of it's nature does so out of lack of understanding of the necessity of each function - grotesque as they may appear to their eyes. They are like unto a novice engineer who upon disassembling a complex machine says to himself - This washer is not needed, neither is this nut - in an attempt to make the machine more efficient, but instead causes the destruction of the machine, not able to see the importance of those few parts which he had eliminated.

Nature is God of itself, and it alone possesses the wisdom to guide those who are a part of nature to holiness. The Body is a Bible unto itself, and alone able to provide the guidance necessary to live a fulfilled life to he who takes the time to get to know it, love it, and understand it's ways.

Religion
Oh how presumptuous it is of any doctrine or scripture to claim Truth over things pertaining to nature. They say to themselves - This is how we should be - and indulge in judging the body without wisdom, creating a self-destructive doctrine which leads it's followers ever farther away from Perfection.

The misunderstanding of one's nature leads to a rejection of the Self, a neglect and abuse that leads to an internal hollowness/unhappiness. Cultures which lack this psychological understanding give birth to a race of masochists. The moral conscience becomes the enemy of the natural conscience - causing an internal conflict and destruction.

The christian bible is a perfect example of such a culture. It is a mixture of the Natural Bible and the culture of of an ancient/outdated people - who lacked understanding of biology and the human mind. Some aspects resonate with the body, lessons of nature plagiarized by it's writers and attributed as their own. Other aspects are clearly out of sync with Natural Law.

Per example, what is referred by the christian Bible as Adultery is also a natural human condition. The urge to have sex does not diminish once one has a spouse. True, there is more desire to have sex with the spouse than other people (initially?) however, the body itself still craves sex outside of those parameters. It's completely natural and every wife/husband feels it - whether they admit it or not.

​

Were they not so despising of their own nature, they'd see that there is no shame; it is human. There is no shame for being human. Were they not brought up in a culture that teaches them to interpret such signs, such actions, as a symbol of betrayal, they may very well feel pleasant joy for their partner as s/he basks in euphoria with others. They would learn a truer love.

Homosexuality is another unjustly condemned orientation that is actually rather natural. It's saddening when I consider that the term "Homosexual" was in psychology books listed as a mental illness up until 1973. And I fail to list the rest, as there are countless of them...

But such normal conditions are labeled sin, a virus, that needs to be purged from our being. We are sold the lie that we are in need of healing some invisible disease, and the very source that sells us this lie claims to have the only cure. Well now isn't that convenient....

And it is not only religion's advocates that upholds such irrational, sadistic, standards. Most who claim to have no religion still ascribe, whether consciously or subconsciously, to beliefs that are contrary to Nature. The primary obstacle in the way of humanity and it's actualization is living forever with the mind as an enemy to the body. Peace, the very thing they cry out for day and night, can never be attained by those who are in constant war with themselves.

​

Actualization
The path to actualization is therefore a journey to return to our first mother. It is a quest to understand the Self and respect it's nature as Divine. It means to develop hypersensitivity to one's own physical state - to be ever alert to the signs of the body and honoring them. It implies we search within ourselves in complete honesty to find and destroy every disguised belief we hold that does not synchronize with who we are.

Perfection begins by falling in love with yourself. Then, once this essential intimacy is formed, when the relationship with the Self is secured, the eye is turned to development.

A perfect man is one who is always 'becoming'. The very same code that defines our perfection also holds within it a desire for growth, a desire to improve endlessly. Yet so many falsely interpret this desire to improve and say to themselves - We are imperfect, else we would not desire improvement - when instead, the desire to improve is part of our perfection. The human species is always evolving, and therefore, paradoxically, in striving for a higher, more perfect goal, it reaches it's destination.

 

[Cognisant]

Can't Transhumanism be a form of self expression?

I agree trying to "fix" flaws in oneself is ultimately self defeating, but I don't believe in the "divinity" of what we are, the sanctity of it, because there are undeniably limits to our present capabilities, are you suggesting these limitations are somehow sacred?

To run from one's humanity may be pointless, but imo one shouldn't be bound by it either.
If anything that would be a betrayal of one's own hypothetically limitless potential.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

You're beliefs are very pretty Auburn, but superficially so. If such lines of thinking were embraced I tend to think humanity would confine itself even more.

Humans are not beautiful, special, or divine, though neither are we sinful or stained. We are simply neutral phenomena that have arisen from the mechanics of the universe. 'Perfection' is an illusion. A tool of the mind to give humanity a goal, when is has none. It's a vague ideal, idle people chase when they cannot choose for themselves how they'd specifically like to change (or not change).

The quest for happiness - the primary obsession of all humanity. It defines the entirety of human existence - it's history, cultures, wars, arts, religions and deities - and has rattled the foundations of the world; shaping it into what it is today.

This is completely incorrect. Very few people actually seek happiness, in fact I believe the term is just a coverup for real desires. In general humanity seeks to hoard, compete, and breed. We call it a 'pursuit of happiness' in an attempt to convince ourselves our desires are legitimate and to absolve ourselves of guilt. It's not the end-all to every action.

Every myth and god man has created is an attempt to answer the one fundamental question by claiming - This is the way to Happiness. Millions of different paths are fabricated as their imaginations attempt to claw their way up to completion, to actualization. Nay, there are billions of paths - for every human is a living testament, a one man religion with it's own fantasy of what is perfection.

Vague promises, with a payoff that is impossible to measure (happiness)..... yeah that's religion. However I reject that your question is fundamental or even relevant to to the human condition.

The desire for an end to all suffering, for the elimination of impurities of character, for a purging of selfishness, lust and sin - are all futile efforts stemming from a misunderstanding of one very simple truth. Man is perfect as he is.

I agree that religion is yet another corporation selling something that isn't even remotely useful, however you're 'perfection' is equally delusional. Are you suggesting we preserve man exactly as he is at this moment? Forcing our nature and our genome to a halt? I know that's not your point, but calling man 'perfect' is little more than psychological propaganda.

Your intentions are benign (I hope); you want people to accept what they can't change about themselves and to cover up you own insecurity about being human. However Man merely is; a complex state of being to be sure, but that's it. Born from an incredibly complex system, he is a chaotic mass of desire and paradox. We shouldn't hate man for this, but neither should we deify him.

Accept reality for what it is, you don't need to paint it up with rhetoric Auburn. That's exactly what religion does.

Just as a lizard is perfectly adapted to it's terrain, and how fish have fins to swim, and lions hunt prey to eat - yet none can blame them for what they do - the human body is no different. Every instinct and natural inclination we have is sinless and part of our adaptation for our own preservation. Our genetics blueprint carries within it the key to our perfection, for it defines perfection for us. It alone understands what is truly "right" and "wrong" for it defines those terms for us, in relation to us, and promises to grant euphoria upon those who abide by it and listen to it's voice.

So the human genome has become you're new holy book? You haven't looked very closely at it then, otherwise you'd see how laughable it is to treat the human genome as something sacred. Only a small percentage of your genome is expressed in your physiology(1-5%). The rest is roughly made up of LINES, SINES, pseudogenes and Endogenous retroviruses. In short the majority of your genome is made up of spam and genetic parasites.

Truly our genome is a fount of wisdom.

Whosoever desires to eliminate from humanity any aspect of it's nature does so out of lack of understanding of the necessity of each function - grotesque as they may appear to their eyes. They are like unto a novice engineer who upon disassembling a complex machine says to himself - This washer is not needed, neither is this nut - in an attempt to make the machine more efficient, but instead causes the destruction of the machine, not able to see the importance of those few parts which he had eliminated.

This whole comparison is a red herring. Of course an inexperienced novice will screw up (though he will learn). However you're implying that no one should dare mess humanity; it's mystical and it can't be understood! It's just like a religion telling it's adherent they can't question God! There's no reason why humanity can't be made more efficient, no reason why we can't be engineered to suit our purposes. Playing with the capabilities of the human body isn't the event horizon you're making it out to be either. It's not like we won't be able to fix our mistakes. Compared to the chaotic hand of nature, I'd much rather have an engineer.

Nature is God of itself, and it alone possesses the wisdom to guide those who are a part of nature to holiness. The Body is a Bible unto itself, and alone able to provide the guidance necessary to live a fulfilled life to he who takes the time to get to know it, love it, and understand it's ways.

Now this is just irritating. There is nothing deliberate or divine about nature Auburn. I don't know where your coming up with this. Nature is arbitrary, it's not capable of possessing 'wisdom.' It's just a system. There's no reason humanity should submit to it and there's no reason humanity can't be wise itself. If Earth's 'nature' was a 100 C hotter, then 'nature's wisdom' would have us all dead Auburn. What point is there in worshiping a random interplay of forces!?

Oh how presumptuous it is of any doctrine or scripture to claim Truth over things pertaining to nature. They say to themselves - This is how we should be - and indulge in judging the body without wisdom, creating a self-destructive doctrine which leads it's followers ever farther away from Perfection.

.....and how is your nature worship, your version of perfection, and your dismissal of human ingenuity not presumptuous?

Most religions argue that man is imperfect. You are argue that man is perfect. I argue that man simply is. Indeed I am making an assumption on man's existence, but you making the same one and more on top. Therefore the burden of proof is on you and on religion. I've seen nothing of evidence or logic to back up either claim. You just seem confident in your own wisdom, despite that both of you say man cannot have wisdom. Do you fancy yourself a prophet, Auburn?

I'm going to stop here, there's no point in continuing. I'm getting too irritated.
I'm sorry Auburn, but this sound like just yet another hokey wannabe new age religion if I've ever seen one. It's trite pseudo-mystical dribble.

 

[Pythia]

Very interesting post.

But such normal conditions are labeled sin, a virus, that needs to be purged from our being.

And it is not only religion's advocates that upholds such irrational, sadistic, standards. Most who claim to have no religion still ascribe, whether consciously or subconsciously, to beliefs that are contrary to Nature.

Humanity itself has deviated from the natural ways: we no longer rely on seasonal rainfalls to have food, nor in sunbeams to have light; not even on evolution, since we have created our own ways to manipulate nature to our pleasure. This has caused us to believe ourselves superior to other beings, and most people live in denial of their own animality. "We are not animals, we are humans". We are trying to transcend our own nature, so accepting such primitive (and immoral to many) traits means recognizing a biological weakness, which instantly causes an urge in us to conquer it by using our superpower: reason.

Whether we've grown bigger than our mold is true or not is not something I don't think we, all people living in our era, can judge.

A perfect man is one who is always 'becoming'.

Reminded me a little of the Ancient Greeks, whose notion of motion relates somewhat to the subject. The difference is that they don't believe men can achieve perfection: they said we are always "becoming", not staying like we are now, and not being what we will be yet. Our purpose is, however, to become perfect, and that's why we are always "becoming". We will only stop changing (moving, in their terms) when we are perfect; so we either die imperfect (before we can become perfect) or we achieve perfection by dying (understanding death as the end of a cycle).
I suppose this is my biggest disagreement. I don't think we can ever be called "perfect", no matter how much imperfection your notion of perfection allows. That, and perceiving us as "divine". A little too pantheistic for me.


Also:

To run from one's humanity may be pointless, but imo one shouldn't be bound by it either. If anything that would be a betrayal of one's own hypothetically limitless potential.

Call my opinion retrograde, but I disagree with our potential being limitless, even hypothetically.

This is completely incorrect. Very few people actually seek happiness, in fact I believe the term is just a coverup for real desires. In general humanity seeks to hoard, compete, and breed. We call it a 'pursuit of happiness' in an attempt to convince ourselves our desires are legitimate and to absolve ourselves of guilt.

There are many different ways of understanding "happiness". I understood it as a way of saying "completion"; more like the state of being to one's full potential, than like an emotional state.

We shouldn't hate man for this, but neither should we deify him.

We cannot judge mankind (at least not objectively) since we belong to it.

 

[Auburn]

@ Nyx

However Man merely is; a complex state of being to be sure, but that's it... There is nothing deliberate or divine about nature Auburn. I don't know where your coming up with this. Nature is arbitrary... Accept reality for what it is, you don't need to paint it up with rhetoric Auburn.

We are not in discord here. Man, nay - the entire universe, merely is. Existence exists; period. This is elementary. Surely you know that I know this, no?

It's actually a bit insulting that you'd think I would overlook this. When I use words like perfection and divinity, you should understand that I mean them subjectively, for those words are by their very nature subjective just like amusing or delicious, and I am therefore trying to make you understand my thoughts via symbolism. I have no intentions of claiming my subjective views to be axiomatic. By interpreting my words literally, you've completely missed the point of my writing.

You're beliefs are very pretty Auburn, but superficially so. If such lines of thinking were embraced I tend to think humanity would confine itself even more...Are you suggesting we preserve man exactly as he is at this moment? Forcing our nature and our genome to a halt?

It would be contrary for me to advocate a halt to that, because nature itself is to blame for our desire to progress. Again: the very same code that defines our perfection also holds within it a desire for growth, a desire to improve endlessly. I am not denying transhumanism. Transhumanism is itself a manifestation of our own genome attempting to recreate itself more perfectly than before.

This whole comparison is a red herring. Of course an inexperienced novice will screw up (though he will learn). However you're implying that no one should dare mess humanity; it's mystical and it can't be understood! It's just like a religion telling it's adherent they can't question God!

No, it's not impossible for humanity to come across the wisdom to do this properly on their own, and usher in our own evolution. However it would require minds who understand all aspects of the system as it exists right now, and know the subtle functions each part holds, to properly create an improved humanity.

Those who wish to eliminate parts of human nature because they've formed a mental distastes for it, and view it as flawed, will likely err when trying to further perfect humanity. If they do hold those biases it's an indicator that they do not completely understand the system they are tampering with, because if they did fully understand it they'd be much more sympathetic to what role those parts play.

The "junk" dna you spoke of is, in my opinion, not junk but there for a purpose. Misunderstanding that purpose and eliminating too much of it could cause mutations that were completely unexpected by those conducting these experiments. Granted even evolution takes this 'trial and error' approach, and thus I suppose it wouldn't be unexpected. In fact, it is a step above Natural Selection as we are also capable of learning from what didn't work and trying something different; a level of consciousness and intent Natural Selection is incapable of producing - which would ultimately lead us to the solution a lot faster than NS would.

Do you fancy yourself a prophet, Auburn? ...I'm sorry Auburn, but this sound like just yet another hokey wannabe new age religion if I've ever seen one. It's trite pseudo-mystical dribble.

Is it really a religion? ..or is it merely an understanding of natural laws accompanied by an appreciation for it's beauty. Is all appreciation of beauty unjustified simply because it is subjective? Will you accuse me of being delusional for that also?

You are immature and unsympathetic of the human body's needs - and also neglectful of your own. If you better understand the function of the subjective realms within the human psyche, perhaps you would not accuse me of such things.

Do you know what type of horrid psyche forms within a human that fails to appreciate beauty in things? Do you know why it is that humanity has sought for a Deity for thousands of years? - or do you simply write it all off as them being idiots?

A human that obsesses over objectivity destroys it's own psyche, for the human mind requires more than logic for the preservation of it's own sanity. Rationals, so confident in their logic, overlook some very basic truths pertaining to humanity and thus betray/neglect their own selves - perhaps failing to remember that they too are human.

And our desire for religion is itself part of our nature, and therefore deserves a level of sympathy and effort towards understanding why we have such a pursuit for it. I'm a rational like you, and I know somewhat from what mindset you're approaching this - but what I am saying is that you're perspective is far too limited.

 

[Auburn]

The Literal & Symbolic Self

The Self exists in two different realms: the literal and the symbolic. The literal human is one which science can observe and explain. It is the physiological human; a creature which can be understood in relation to chemistry as well as it's environment and the rest of the earth. Knowledge of the literal self, and an adherence to those Natural laws which govern it's structure, are imperative to it's overall actualization.

The second, the symbolic man, is born from the literal man and is the manifestation of the body's physiology. The symbolic man is the "I", our metaphysical identity, and is born from the complexity of the brain's biology. Just as the literal eye gives birth to sight - which is a symbolic window into reality, and how a harp gives birth to music, the human brain gives birth to the mind; to consciousness.

What many call the spiritual self is essentially this same symbolic self. It is equally imperative that we possess spiritual health as well as physical health. Though it may be truth that the spiritual self does not exist in the literal sense, those who have such high esteem for literal existence that they discount anything outside of the literal as irrelevant, make a huge mistake.

​

Reflection

Your spiritual self is a self-reflection like your reflection in a mirror, water, or your shadow - which are also different manifestations of the literal self. What man looks into a mirror and says - That man is not really me, but merely an illusion, therefore I will not trust it. I can only trust my literal form - ? He would live a life never knowing what his own face looks like simply because he does not trust the symbolic self within the mirror. Likewise you shouldn't disregard this figurative entity or the many figurative concepts associated with it such as love, the heart, mind, soul, and many more - as they will serve as your eyesight into aspects of you that you might otherwise be blind to.


Toxic Philosophies

Some philosophies (reductionism, nihilism, absurdism) regard consciousness as a false concept, an illusion, and those who ascribe to them begin to lose all respect for themselves, life, and reality; unable to appreciate it's poetry. Having lost faith in the spiritual aspect of their own existence, their spirit becomes neglected - turning their life into a completely unfulfilled reality.

It is impossible for a human to divorce hirself from these very natural tendencies to believe in a self outside of the material. As long as one remains human, it is imperative to live in this symbolic world and not discard or depreciate these symbols, else it becomes impossible for him to reach complete health and fulfillment.

The human brain operates via symbolism, perceiving reality through a figurative lens, and it is impossible to escape this very basic functionality and still maintain one's sanity - nor should it be escaped. If the literal were all that we needed for our completion, Nature would not have gifted us with intuitive and spiritual capacities.

There is no reason for why a scientist or someone who's profession is to discover the literal truths of existence should disregard the symbolic truths of their own being. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is only when the scientist makes his science into his religion that it destroys him...

 

[Jesin]

Is it really a religion? ..or is it merely an understanding of natural laws accompanied by an appreciation for it's beauty. Is all appreciation of beauty unjustified simply because it is subjective? Will you accuse me of being delusional for that also?

I think an appreciation of beauty may be necessary for a truly fulfilling life; it certainly helps, at any rate. So no, you are not delusional for appreciating beauty.

On the other hand, you seem to be making some rather dubious assertions about what these "natural laws" actually are.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

A human that obsesses over objectivity destroys it's own psyche, for the human mind requires more than logic for the preservation of it's own sanity. Rationals, so confident in their logic, overlook some very basic truths pertaining to humanity and thus betray/neglect their own selves - perhaps failing to remember that they too are human.

I don't like being strawmanned Auburn. Asking for rationale is hardly equitable to obsessing over objectivity. Don't presume I'm another objective purist (though I know they're common here). I value subjectivity in it's own right, but flags raise in my head when some person claims their subjectivity is above the subjectivity of others, even going so far to imply another person cannot be healthy otherwise.

I'm merely trying to weed through your verbiage to find the crux of what your saying, which from what I can tell is just nothing. Unless you're insisting everything be viewed as perfect and beautiful which is just inane and obfuscating. Negative and Neutral words and world-views are just as applicable as positive ones. Though subjectively I tend to think overly positive or negative perspectives cause people to lose clarity and become gullible. Indeed even more subjectively, I find it hard not to see it as running away.

And our desire for religion is itself part of our nature, and therefore deserves a level of sympathy and effort towards understanding why we have such a pursuit for it.

I don't have a desire for religion, and I was raised to be theist. Many people don't, so it's clearly not an integral part of human nature. I'd be the first to admit humanity is gullible to superstitious thinking. It's an easy way to answer unknowns, so people take advantage of it. Humanity is stupid and forgetful, so superstitious thinking thrives, but that doesn't mean it's inherent to our existence. Even if we evolved specifically to believe in mystical phenomenon, that still wouldn't prove said phenomenon were actually real. I subjectively value truth, so I can see no purpose in believing and catering to something that may not actually exist (god/souls).

However if your main point was to say I lack sympathy for religious people, that is also completely wrong. I intimately understand the religious/superstitious mindset, and I have nothing but sympathy for those caught up in it.

You are immature and unsympathetic of the human body's needs - and also neglectful of your own.

but what I am saying is that you're perspective is far too limited.

So just to clarify you're calling me ignorant and unhealthy becuase I disagree with you?
Yep not like religion at all.

Do you know what type of horrid psyche forms within a human that fails to appreciate beauty in things?

and even scare tactics
Also Auburn there is a difference between finding subjective beauty in life and shamelessly embellishing everything.



and concerning the so-called toxic philosophies.....
You may not have been able to accept such philosophies without detriment to your mental and physical health. However you don't speak for everyone do you? Why exactly are you so convinced of your own subjective wisdom anyway?

Of course you may brush all this off, saying you're just offering your world-view, but the way you word things clearly refutes any claim you have to benign passivity.

 

[Cognisant]

Well-well-well, Auburn's "T"eeth are coming out.

*watchs with detached bemusement, the kitten biting him*

Some philosophies (reductionism, nihilism, absurdism) regard consciousness as a false concept, an illusion, and those who ascribe to them begin to lose all respect for themselves, life, and reality; unable to appreciate it's poetry. Having lost faith in the spiritual aspect of their own existence, their spirit becomes neglected - turning their life into a completely unfulfilled reality.

Consciousness isn't the false concept, our brains perform the function of thinking, it's identity that's the false concept, a self-characterisation of ourselves that we must overcome in order to develop beyond our self-imposed limits. I'll use myself as an example, I Cognisant, you know of me as the character I play, this wannabe intellectual with specific interests, values, and behavioural patterns, but what's stopping me from changing my character, and if I can change my character, who am I really?

It’s a moot question, one cannot-not play a character, anyway I’d like to direct your attention to an anime entitled “Big O” in which the ending goes all eva-mindfuck, specifically regarding the topic of memories, identity, and what it means to be who you are, even if identity is technically contrived.

You may remember my last avatar was of Roger (the protagonist), it was fitting imo.

Anyway, although many go mad at the gates of nihilism, the figurative land beyond is not one of madness, instead like the hero in the monomyth, one finds oneself returning to where they started, wiser for the experience.

 

[Auburn]

@ Coggie - *noms happily* ^^ - I don't know if you see it within yourself but you actually do have much appreciation for the symbolic and non-literal. I admire you for that.

Your user title is very fitting. When one realizes that any inherent meaning/purpose in this universe is unjustified, because it is not objectively true, then one must either live without purpose/meaning or learn to appreciate subjective meaning.

And yes, I agree that identity is a false concept if we're speaking in literal terms. However one of the many functions of the human brain is to generate this perception of a "Self", even if only figuratively. This means that this illusion is necessary and plays a key part in the way humanity functions. To deconstruct this naturally ordained self-identity without understanding what it's purpose is, is potentially damaging to the psyche.

 

[TheHmmmm]

Well-well-well, Auburn's "T"eeth are coming out.

*watchs with detached bemusement, the kitten biting him*

Consciousness isn't the false concept, our brains perform the function of thinking, it's identity that's the false concept, a self-characterisation of ourselves that we must overcome in order to develop beyond our self-imposed limits. I'll use myself as an example, I Cognisant, you know of me as the character I play, this wannabe intellectual with specific interests, values, and behavioural patterns, but what's stopping me from changing my character, and if I can change my character, who am I really?

It’s a moot question, one cannot-not play a character, anyway I’d like to direct your attention to an anime entitled “Big O” in which the ending goes all eva-mindfuck, specifically regarding the topic of memories, identity, and what it means to be who you are, even if identity is technically contrived.

You may remember my last avatar was of Roger (the protagonist), it was fitting imo.

Anyway, although many go mad at the gates of nihilism, the figurative land beyond is not one of madness, instead like the hero in the monomyth, one finds oneself returning to where they started, wiser for the experience.

The only thing stopping you from changing your character IS in fact your character. The very fact that you haven't changed your character (an assumption on my part) reveals that your desire to change yourself isn't stronger than the combination of your self-contentment and willpower. If you have changed yourself, than obviously it implies the opposite. Now this does lead to an infinite sequence of attempting to define who we are, but just because we cannot define ourselves in our brief existences, doesn't mean that definition doesn't exist. Who knows, maybe the only identity we truly have is our degree of malleability and our pursuit of happiness.

As far as nihilism, I don't think it's driven me mad, but I also don't find myself "returning where I've started", albeit I have no idea what you mean by that.

On the note of perfection, I maintain my stance that an attempt at conceptualizing perfection is setting forth a personal "ideal" that won't fit for everyone and is therefore not perfect. I think that is so far the only true illusion.

 

[Kuu]

Oh how I loathe it when the word "nature" is used to refer to the biological status-quo... I won't even comment on the use of the word 'spiritual'...

... moving on...


Most of what I wanted to say has already been said by others, but I'd like to give added recognition to the following:

I value subjectivity in it's own right, but flags raise in my head when some person claims their subjectivity is above the subjectivity of others, even going so far to imply another person cannot be healthy otherwise.

I'm merely trying to weed through your verbiage to find the crux of what your saying, which from what I can tell is just nothing. Unless you're insisting everything be viewed as perfect and beautiful which is just inane and obfuscating. Negative and Neutral words and world-views are just as applicable as positive ones.

and concerning the so-called toxic philosophies.....
You may not have been able to accept such philosophies without detriment to your mental and physical health. However you don't speak for everyone do you? Why exactly are you so convinced of your own subjective wisdom anyway?

Of course you may brush all this off, saying you're just offering your world-view, but the way you word things clearly refutes any claim you have to benign passivity.

+9001 XP

It is equally imperative that we possess spiritual health as well as physical health.

Oh "health"... another very vague concept and subjective value that is not necessarily shared by all... that hadn't been pointed out by others.

you should understand that I mean them subjectively, for those words are by their very nature subjective just like amusing or delicious, and I am therefore trying to make you understand my thoughts via symbolism. I have no intentions of claiming my subjective views to be axiomatic. By interpreting my words literally, you've completely missed the point of my writing.

Vague language is more often than not a reflection of incoherent thought and/or a tool used by the unscrupulous to manipulate those that suffer from incoherent thought. Occasionally it is also the tool of obscurantists that seek to conceal their true message...

By trying to make people understand your subjective viewpoints with vague vocabulary, you have set yourself up for being misunderstood and misrepresented. You might have personal biases to such vocabulary, but if your intention is to communicate your ideas as clearly as possible, I strongly advise you to eschew such things... Clear language provides clear thought and clear communication (and while a static and perfect language is impossible as surely any postmodernist will tell you, it certainly is possible to approximate it as best we can).

I think you could have made your point with much less 'poetic' (to put it mildly) language and with a much higher reader rates and success in transmitting your message if you just had spared us all that 'verbiage' and said this (which I believe summarizes it all):

A human that obsesses over objectivity destroys it's own psyche, for the human mind requires more than logic for the preservation of it's own sanity. Rationals, so confident in their logic, overlook some very basic truths pertaining to humanity and thus betray/neglect their own selves - perhaps failing to remember that they too are human.

Whosoever desires to eliminate from humanity any aspect of its nature does so out of lack of understanding of the necessity of each function - grotesque as they may appear to their eyes. They are like unto a novice engineer who upon disassembling a complex machine says to himself - This washer is not needed, neither is this nut - in an attempt to make the machine more efficient, but instead causes the destruction of the machine, not able to see the importance of those few parts which he had eliminated.

(...)

Were they not so despising of their own nature, they'd see that there is no shame; it is human. There is no shame for being human. Were they not brought up in a culture that teaches them to interpret such signs, such actions, as a symbol of betrayal, they may very well feel pleasant joy for their partner as s/he basks in euphoria with others.

(...)

And it is not only religion's advocates that upholds such irrational, sadistic, standards. Most who claim to have no religion still ascribe, whether consciously or subconsciously, to beliefs that are contrary to Nature. The primary obstacle in the way of humanity and its actualization is living forever with the mind as an enemy to the body. Peace, the very thing they cry out for day and night, can never be attained by those who are in constant war with themselves.

And now, a couple of tangential links that I wasn't sure where else to post (which, to be honest, were pretty much the main reason for me to post in this thread), related to happiness, pain, pleasure and motivation:
• Happiness is a Warm Electrode
• Wirehead Hedonism versus paradise engineering

.

 

[Fukyo]

Spoiler

I can literally write pages on this subject, but to condense my incoherent brain-spill in one simple form:

There is no universal answer. Each and every one of us has their own subjective reality. And every human is the Creator of their own reality, whether by direct or indirect means, and their realities spill out to interplay with others, each a factor of influence and value in their own right.

The quest for happiness - the primary obsession of all humanity. It defines the entirety of human existence - it's history, cultures, wars, arts, religions and deities - and has rattled the foundations of the world; shaping it into what it is today.

What does humanity seek? We can venture to say they do look for something. But do we know what it is, can we define it? Do they even know themselves?

Maybe it is meaning, maybe it is purpose, maybe they are just looking to follow their basic instinct of sustaining themselves and reproducing, maybe it is this elusive state of happiness - I do not know.

I will just propose a possibility.

Humans are looking to make sense of their reality, on their own terms - which we may not always be able to know or comprehend as intimately as they do. The religions, the philosophies, the deities, the systems of thought, the ideologies - aren't they all someone's way of interpreting the reality as they see it through their own lens?

/redundant post

 

[Auburn]

All of you here know me personally, some for over a year. I've spoken elsewhere with you about my disbelief in any religion and spirituality, my disbelief in the legitimacy of 'vague' but commonly unquestioned concepts, my acceptance of the rationality behind several philosophies (determinism, nihilism, transhumanism), my appreciation for science, clarity and complete unbiased truth. ..have you all forgotten that?

Does it not occur to you that I know what you guys are saying, or that I have thought about those angles? If you stopped to remember that, then maybe you would think twice about accusing me of irrationalities which I am not trying to advocate. Perhaps then you'd ask yourselves what it is I'm really trying to say instead of nitpicking.

Vague language is more often than not a reflection of incoherent thought and/or a tool used by the unscrupulous to manipulate those that suffer from incoherent thought.

Kuu, did you forget that I usually never post because I am ocd about my writings? ..and when I do post I tend to edit them 5+ times because I want my thoughts to be as clear as possible. The first post and my consequent posts were not written nonchalantly. They were well thought out and every word was chosen for a reason.

However, since you guys are all so unaccepting of figurative speech, unable to see past the surface, then I'll spell it out for you all in 'intp':

 

[Auburn]

Vocabulary. A reminder that any one word's definition is essentially whatever meaning the communicating parties have agreed to associate to it. Here are the concepts I associate with said 'vague' words:

Happiness: ..is not referring to the emotional or bio-electrical state of the mind synonymous with joy/euphoria. It is referring to an all encompassing state of being, a type of completion where all aspects of oneself and one's life are fulfilled. Pythia nailed this one.

Perfection: As I mentioned, countless definitions exist for 'perfection' and how to achieve it. The description of perfection I wrote is my own version of it. I define perfection as our DNA's ideal manifestation of itself.

Our DNA, like the coding of any other life form, has a particular goal it desires to achieve - whether that is to blossom a flower, produce fruit, give birth to offspring, or some other goal that is ultimately beneficial to it's survival. For the human, that goal is more complicated than that of plants or animals, (and it varies somewhat from person to person) but nevertheless there is a goal - and the achieving of that goal is what I define as perfection & actualization.

Actualization: I am defining as a more conscious version of evolution. This relates to my version of perfection in that I believe part of the human genome's perfect manifestation includes within it a desire to improve endlessly - hence: A perfect man is one who is always 'becoming'.

Health: ..comes with happiness/perfection as the byproduct of our DNA's ideal manifestation of itself. Ideally the body seeks it's own 'health', which is to say the unhindered expression of it's genome.

I divided this into two aspects: physical and spiritual. By this I meant physiologically and psychologically.

Nature: ..is the accumulative whole of the laws of this universe/reality.

No I am not ascribing any conscious 'will' to nature. It is no more conscious than a wind-up clapping monkey toy, but like that toy, it too possesses a direction it flows; a pattern to it's conduct. Nature, by virtue of it's very laws, upholds a certain order and therefore compels objects within itself towards a specific direction.

Understanding this flow, the causality of reality (and by extension the causality of our coding, since it is essentially a manifestation of universal laws), is the key to knowing what is needed to achieve this happiness. The key to our perfection is within a complete understanding of natural law and an adherence to them.

Divine: ..having said the above, I hope it's clear I don't perceive nature as a literal deity. I use it as an adjective to describe how magnificently complex and beautiful I perceive nature to be.

***
​

Pertaining to my actual message, my assertion is that because all humans are manifestations of their genome which is ultimately an expression of universal laws - viewing other humans as gullible or stupid for believing in their religions or for ascribing to spirituality demonstrate a lack of understanding on their part, of the workings behind their actions, and therefore by extension a misunderstanding of universal laws/truths.

A human can consciously 'understand' that they might not truly exist outside of merely being a sack of atoms, however subconsciously they cannot rid themselves of the belief that they are an entity of their own - that 'they' exist and possess identity. This, I believe, is a central function of the subconscious realms of the mind.

There is a psychological reason for why they believe what they do, and it needs to be understood, not just criticized. Having said that, I find it wise to journey into one's own psyche in a quest to become acquainted with the truths that are specific to you. If "the key to our perfection is within a complete understanding of natural law and an adherence to them" - then an understanding of one's own psyche can lead you to this. This includes the more superstitious and irrational aspects of one's mind.

 

[Auburn]

Spoiler

You guys get me pissed sometimes..
​

 

[Cavallier]

I wish to clarify further:

Pertaining to my actual message, my assertion is that because all humans are manifestations of their genome which is ultimately an expression of universal laws - viewing other humans as gullible or stupid for believing in their religions or for ascribing to spirituality demonstrate a lack of understanding on their part, of the workings behind their actions, and therefore by extension a misunderstanding of universal laws/truths.

So what you mean to say is: Each individual is nothing more or less than the expression of that person's genome. The genome itself is the the product of the universe/universal laws/everything up to this point. This does not mean the human genome is the pinnacle of the universe but that it is simply a creation of the universe or at the very least defined by the universe.

THUS, as each person/genome is a creation of the universe of no greater or lesser value than any other person/genome we should not place any greater or lesser value on that person's philosophy. (Philosophy is meant to include all beliefs/truths/whatever that person's psyche is made up of.)

There is a psychological reason for why they believe what they do, and it needs to be understood, not just criticized. Having said that, I find it wise to journey into one's own psyche in a quest to become acquainted with the truths that are specific to you. If "the key to our perfection is within a complete understanding of natural law and an adherence to them" - then an understanding of one's own psyche can lead you to this. This includes the more superstitious and irrational aspects of one's mind.

So, you mean it's a cosmic circle yes?

If the Universal Laws begets each Individual's Genome, and the Individual's Genome begets each Individual's Psyche, and each Individual's Psyche begets that Individual's Behaviors/Beliefs, then an Acceptance of that Individual's Behaviors/Beliefs is an acceptance of the Universal Laws.

What are you getting at with this part?:

A human can consciously 'understand' that they might not truly exist outside of merely being a sack of atoms, however subconsciously they cannot rid themselves of the belief that they are an entity of their own - that 'they' exist and possess identity. This, I believe, is a central function of the subconscious realms of the mind.

It seems unrelated to the rest of your discussion. Unless you are are setting the stage for the second act of your argument. If you intend to tell me that once we all identify and then accept our own diverse intricacies of nature we should subsequently discard them I'll do this: .

 

[Auburn]

If the Universal Laws begets each Individual's Genome, and the Individual's Genome begets each Individual's Psyche, and each Individual's Psyche begets that Individual's Behaviors/Beliefs, then an Acceptance of that Individual's Behaviors/Beliefs is an acceptance of the Universal Laws.

Yus ^.^

What are you getting at with this part?:

That was mostly directed at Coggie TehMomo and Nyx, pertaining to Identity. What I am saying is that even though one might consciously recognize themselves as having no identity, the deep parts of their psyche still won't allow them to fully escape that illusion. And thus, this subjective Identity is best off accepted; and an attempt should be made to understand it, rather than neglect it due to one's 'conscious' discredit/invalidation for it - because accepting and understanding it is also part of understanding the universe's intricate manifestation: yourself.

Spoiler

Also... a gift for you, sweet Cavallier:

 

[Cavallier]

Yeah Toast!!!

I plan on following up now that I understand what you're getting at. However, right now the sleepy time, she comes.

 

[Da Blob]

Well if we are going to discuss Self -actualization, perhaps going to the source might be a good thing


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

This quote is from the summary of Maslow's original work (Emphasis added)

(1) There are at least five sets of goals, which we may call basic needs. These are briefly physiological, safety, love, 'esteem, and self-actualization. In addition, we are motivated by the desire to achieve or maintain the various conditions upon which these basic satisfactions rest and by certain more intellectual desires.

(2) These basic goals are related to each other, being arranged in a hierarchy of prepotency. This means that the most prepotent goal will monopolize consciousness and will tend of itself to organize the recruitment of the various capacities of the organism. The less prepotent needs are [p. 395] minimized, even forgotten or denied. But when a need is fairly well satisfied, the next prepotent ('higher') need emerges, in turn to dominate the conscious life and to serve as the center of organization of behavior, since gratified needs are not active motivators.

Thus man is a perpetually wanting animal. Ordinarily the satisfaction of these wants is not altogether mutually exclusive, but only tends to be. The average member of our society is most often partially satisfied and partially unsatisfied in all of his wants. The hierarchy principle is usually empirically observed in terms of increasing percentages of non-satisfaction as we go up the hierarchy. Reversals of the average order of the hierarchy are sometimes observed. Also it has been observed that an individual may permanently lose the higher wants in the hierarchy under special conditions. There are not only ordinarily multiple motivations for usual behavior, but in addition many determinants other than motives.

(3) Any thwarting or possibility of thwarting of these basic human goals, or danger to the defenses which protect them, or to the conditions upon which they rest, is considered to be a psychological threat. With a few exceptions, all psychopathology may be partially traced to such threats. A basically thwarted man may actually be defined as a 'sick' man, if we wish.

The fifth set of goals involved Self-actualization. Maslow interviewed the most influential individuals of the 1940s to arrive at a concept of what entails and entitles the process of Self - actualization. The problem being, that as an atheist, he did not interview any spiritual people, but only those who enjoyed secular success in academia or in popular culture, so he entirely muffed the sixth set of goals.

LOL - I simply do not understand how unbelievers can discuss spirituality while all the time denying that there are such things as spirits(?) Spirituality without spirit is a meaningless concept.

Once again may I point out that these sweeping claims of what Christianity is or is not, are merely personal beliefs - without documentation or evidence? Yet, they are still presented as established scientific fact - when they are just pure prejudice and utter hubris.

A perfect Man is One without desires, so perfection is often only a momentary state, as one is immediately presented with something new or different to want, to desire and lust after. It is so amusing to see so many lured from a state of contentment and perfection by the mere idea that there just might be a slim possibility that there is something better "Out there, some where, some time"

 

[Deleted member 1424]

All of you here know me personally, some for over a year. I've spoken elsewhere with you about my disbelief in any religion and spirituality, my disbelief in the legitimacy of 'vague' but commonly unquestioned concepts, my acceptance of the rationality behind several philosophies (determinism, nihilism, transhumanism), my appreciation for science, clarity and complete unbiased truth. ..have you all forgotten that?

Does it not occur to you that I know what you guys are saying, or that I have thought about those angles? If you stopped to remember that, then maybe you would think twice about accusing me of irrationalities which I am not trying to advocate. Perhaps then you'd ask yourselves what it is I'm really trying to say instead of nitpicking.

So you're essentially expecting special treatment from the people here, simply because you're a respected forum elder? I know that's not what you mean, but you say a lot of things that you don't mean and that is what this looks like to me.

This is one thread, my criticisms are of it's content as expressed therein. If it needs to be taken in context with other threads you need to present it as such. You can't expect your reputation (or what you think is your reputation) to have any bearing on how people will respond to you. You could be Nicola Tesla or Gandhi; it wouldn't have changed my response.


I think I'll end my involvement in this thread. I'm sure you're even angrier with me now, Auburn, and there's no sense in exacerbating the situation further. Somehow I doubt a 'don't take it personally' will cut it after all.

 

[Auburn]

I'm talking to you Nyx, personally, as well as the others who posted. Were it someone who I haven't interacted with as much who posted your objections, I would have gladly accepted the challenge afresh, because they wouldn't be familiar with my views - nor would I expect them to be. What bothers me is that you do know them, yet choose to be ignorant of them.

And now I've even explained my views and all the context so that there is no further misunderstandings. So why do you flee? I've made myself as clear as I can in presenting my perspective - taking out all the "verbiage" as you wished - and you have nothing to say to it? You're such an ass...

 

[Cognisant]

Buh ha ha haa ha ha ha etc. (at the whole Nyx'vs'Auburn conflict)

*bemused hmm* Your understanding of things, Auburn, is quite profound, although in of itself there's little particularly new to me, I would simply have put it another way, however this is indicative of what I find endlessly fascinating, the path you have taken in acquiring this understanding.

Nyx and I have taken the path of rational purity, and you rightly warned me of its dangers, although for me the danger has already passed, thankfully Nyx was there to set me straight whenever the madness that drove me (this desire for ever deeper understanding) began to consume me. So please don't scold her too harshly for the very qualities I'm indebted to her for, that uncompromising level-headedness may not mix well with your style of explanation but she'll understand once it's been reworded, indeed with such acuity it's amazing that she's not infected with this madness too, or perhaps it's merely dormant.

Anyway, it would seem you've taken the more natural path of self acceptance, where I've sought reconciliation with nihilism in the pursuit of existential understanding, you have reconciled with yourself, both in (your terminology) body and spirit, recognising the inherent flaw in dualism between who and what one is; in fact it could be said that you've "actualized". Now admittedly there's much I could learn from this, because honestly I haven't "actualized"; freeing myself of the "value of values" has given me great clarity but I'm still at war with myself and even though I understand rationally that which is inherent-of-me is of greatest importance to my existence (particularly to being happy) I still fight it, if only because I've always fought it.
Some things just have to be unlearnt.

While I recognise external values as contrived, you recognise internal values as likewise contrived, which is to say they're not inherent, that there is no "good" or "bad" aspects of oneself, at worst only that which is unbalanced/unhealthy. But I wonder, are you also bothered by external values as I'm yet to rid myself of internal ones, or am I trailing behind you in terms of development?

Lastly,
Y'know humility, well of late I've figured that humility is the definition of enlightenment, partly because absurdism/existentialism and the nihilistic realisation that direct experience is inherently subjective, all imply that there's always the possibility of misunderstanding, thus there can never be absolute understanding (the traditional definition of enlightenment). And partly because of something Schopenhauer said about anyone who understood everything they would be so swollen with arrogance that, although they may not burst, they would present the spectacle of unbridled folly, and so nobody would listen to them.
(okay, technically he never made that exact point, as far as I know, but the point I made by rewording a point he made is an implication of the points he made, so it’s what he would have said, it seems)

Of course knowing that being humble is being enlightened, doesn’t mean I’m humble, as I said before I’m still pretty flawed, but I’m working on it.

 

[Auburn]

Quite a journey, isn't it.. *smiles*

I'm glad you're alright. You did have me worried for a while.. and I suppose maybe I do owe Nyx for that. Is the journey truly over? I'd hate to find out that I've already actualized ^^; there's just so much more to explore. Although, by my personal definition, the journey is the destination - therefore maybe one is "actualized" while they are "actualizing"? I'm not sure.

Values

If I understand you correctly when you say external values, then I suppose even they too are manifestations of the same genetic elements that bring internal values into existence? - and combined with internal values work to establish what we know as society. There must be a place for them somewhere right? - as much as I often clash with their existence and dislike them.

Certain personalities are more prone to externalize their values and impose them on others - thus creating external order, laws, customs and the like. Other personalities are more prone to philosophize and introspect endlessly - but all seems to be part of a whole; a variety of individuals that are generated by the same genetic system - different movements of the same master symphony.

I think that who I am is meant to clash with them, and have a distaste for them. I don't try to change that. Accepting my emotions in their rawest form, as irrational as they may seem to me, hasn't been an easy process, but it's the only way I can be fully at peace with my internal self; accepting emotional input as absolutely valid.

For instance, Nyx pissed me off and I bit back even though I have a deterministic outlook of her actions that makes it impossible for me to find fault in her or blame her for what she said. It was necessary for me to let that frustration flow naturally and not try to rationalize it away.

Humility

And yes, it seems that the only thing one, as a human, can truly be certain of is that they cannot know anything for certain; and that is where enlightenment stops - all the rest is merely assumptions and theories.

Lor is a beautiful example that I see of the humility you describe - so very hesitant to make any type of claim, never believing her views to be anything but the ramblings of a fool, and yet what she calls ramblings I see as priceless insights. I greatly admire that humility, though I know I certainly don't possess it...

 

[Cavallier]

A complete acceptance of myself including those differences that are so easily placed on a value scale is the key to actualization? Theoretically it's not too hard. I am who I am and I accept myself and those who are not me. That's an utterly simplistic and plebeian phrase. It should more complex than that yet it rang true to me years ago. However, there is a tug of war between the internal and external. I used to question what I might have placed value judgments on. I questioned what had caused these value judgments and when I found the source I obliterated it with reason. It was an entirely mental exercise and admittedly not a terribly difficult one. It came naturally to accept. Yet, when I came across these things in the external I had to fight the whole thing all over again but in real time with external and often physical consequences. It is the external, the practical, the dirty hands and sore elbow work that has gotten me closer to actualization. When you meet the utterly foreign and still accept it for what it is...that's when I inch closer to actualization.

I accept the idea that a person can reach actualization through a purely internal exercise but that has not been a completely useful path for me. Or at least not a permanent one. I have had to move the rocks aside and make the path before I made any permanent headway.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I really shouldn't bother as this is pointless. I'm sure you'll just discount everything I say. I had wanted to avoid further confrontation, hell I even wanted to spare your feelings, but I'm ever so vulnerable to the coward taunt you see.

So I'm glad to see you redefined some terms; some completely different from the standard definitions... How you were expecting us to intuitively use these particular definitions is beyond me, but anyway good job!

Our DNA, like the coding of any other life form, has a particular goal it desires to achieve - whether that is to blossom a flower, produce fruit, give birth to offspring, or some other goal that is ultimately beneficial to it's survival. For the human, that goal is more complicated than that of plants or animals, (and it varies somewhat from person to person) but nevertheless there is a goal - and the achieving of that goal is what I define as perfection & actualization.

I'm confused, why do you think genetic codes can have goals? The only 'goal' a gene can have is to achieve replication. Which is quite natural and logical when you think about it; the most successful genes are those that can best replicate. The only perfection Darwinian evolution (and our DNA) can grant us is that of perfect breeding stock. Does that sound remotely like actualization to you? Of course you'll probably argue that it's a stepping stone allowing us to direct our own evolution and must thus still be perfect by some logic. However if humanity survives past the destruction of our planet, we will have most assuredly nicked most of our genetic code (either designing our own from scratch or abandoning biological tissue altogether). However DNA must still be perfect somehow right?

What I am saying is that even though one might consciously recognize themselves as having no identity, the deep parts of their psyche still won't allow them to fully escape that illusion. And thus, this subjective Identity is best off accepted; and an attempt should be made to understand it, rather than neglect it due to one's 'conscious' discredit/invalidation for it - because accepting and understanding it is also part of understanding the universe's intricate manifestation: yourself.

I don't think identity is an illusion. For now I am distinct from you and everyone else, a separate, individual entity. However I don't believe an 'identify' is an immutable thing like a soul. I personally believe it can quantified, scientifically understood and even replicated. An identity is a pattern, a pattern that could theoretically be transfered between mediums, though elements of it can be lost. Most of one's identity lies in the mind; in memory and thought, though undeniably it also partly lies in the body. However one like myself wouldn't particularly mind sacrificing that part of their identity in order to embrace a new identity. Changing oneself is the same as changing one's identity, I hardly think it's something to be feared the way it is.

I doubt an identity inherently possesses wisdom, I doubt it is mystical and I doubt it is perfect. I think identities are rarely as deep and complicated as so many tend to believe.

I think that who I am is meant to clash with them, and have a distaste for them. I don't try to change that. Accepting my emotions in their rawest form, as irrational as they may seem to me, hasn't been an easy process, but it's the only way I can be fully at peace with my internal self; accepting emotional input as absolutely valid.

For instance, Nyx pissed me off and I bit back even though I have a deterministic outlook of her actions that makes it impossible for me to find fault in her or blame her for what she said. It was necessary for me to let that frustration flow naturally and not try to rationalize it away.

I have to wonder the point of having such beliefs if they do not impact your actions.

I'm talking to you Nyx, personally, as well as the others who posted. Were it someone who I haven't interacted with as much who posted your objections, I would have gladly accepted the challenge afresh, because they wouldn't be familiar with my views - nor would I expect them to be. What bothers me is that you do know them, yet choose to be ignorant of them.

Well now that were talking personally to each other Auburn, you're quite right. I know your forum persona well. We were always quite different, but I respected your views and generally thought of you as an individual of cautious insight. That's why when you decided to pull shit like this, *gestures at the whole thread* I got rather annoyed.

First of all, the OP is an obvious and shameless knockoff of XIII/Lyra. So much so it could be a parody of his/her style. You're even responding exactly the way she/he typically does. It's really quite ridiculous; fawning over people you approve of (cavalier, cog) and getting overly defensive and petty when faced with criticism (kuu and myself). At any rate the forum isn't your Skinner box .

Funny how the Auburn I knew wasn't such a warmonger and didn't take to stalking people on irc.

And now I've even explained my views and all the context so that there is no further misunderstandings. So why do you flee? I've made myself as clear as I can in presenting my perspective - taking out all the "verbiage" as you wished - and you have nothing to say to it? You're such an ass...

To be fair Auburn you've flat out ignored many of my criticisms. So does that technically make you an ass as well? Either way you convinced me to post again, but I make no promises for the future. This has already been a massive waste of time.

 

[AlisaD]

There, go have fun

 

[TheHmmmm]

Lor is a beautiful example that I see of the humility you describe - so very hesitant to make any type of claim, never believing her views to be anything but the ramblings of a fool, and yet what she calls ramblings I see as priceless insights. I greatly admire that humility, though I know I certainly don't possess it...

What is the point of such humility? I don't consider chronic low self-esteem to be a good thing (not speaking to LoR's character, but to the concept). Put confidence in your reasoning and that of those around you in realistic proportions and I think you'll have the strongest perceptive force available. Is there any point to humility other than to make others feel better?

 

[Auburn]

I'm confused, why do you think genetic codes can have goals? The only 'goal' a gene can have is to achieve replication. Which is quite natural and logical when you think about it; the most successful genes are those that can best replicate...

The very definition of a gene, or group of genes, is a segment of DNA that carries within it hereditary information specific to one aspect of the organism. One gene's goal can be to generate blue eye color, another to generate brown hair, others to generate the genitals and reproductive organs. The "goal" of a gene is whatever function it is programmed to do - and not all genes focus on reproduction.

The prime goal of any genetic system as a whole is not just reproduction, but survival and reproduction. The very same desires for reproduction/survival are manifested in countless ways within different species, some incredibly more complex and symbolic than others. The massive diversity of life on this planet is essentially nature's way of retelling the same story.

Some stories are simplistic, such as that of the Mayfly, while others are much more extravagant like that of the Lyre bird which unfolds the simple act of mating/reproducing into an elaborate song, or the birds of Paradise which turn this basic desire into a dance to attract a mate.

Humanity is perhaps the most complex species, and has it's own subtle play when it comes to survival (power/politics) and reproduction (romance/drama) - but it still nonetheless follows the same prime goals.

However, there is another aspect that exists within the desire for survival and that is adaptation/evolution. If an animal is unable to adapt or evolve to fit harsh conditions, it won't survive. Adaptation is a mechanism derived from the need for survival.

And just like reproduction, the disposition to adapt manifests in different levels of complexity within different species. It is believed that the male birds of paradise evolved into colorful and beautiful species because the food supply in the island of New Guinea is so rich that female birds have no trouble finding a suitable mate - making the competition much greater for male birds to find a mate. This competition, over centuries, resulted in the most aesthetic and healthy candidates advancing while the rest faced an end.

In the human, this desire for adaptation/evolution stemming from survival manifests in our advancements in technology, science, engineering, medical advances, etc - which are ultimately all way for us to secure our survival. Our desire to achieve a type of immortality and transcend our current form are likewise derived from the same. If we ever do manage to transcend biological form, we would still owe it to that coding, as incomplete and faulty as we may view it in the future.

 

[Auburn]

I have to wonder the point of having such beliefs if they do not impact your actions.

As an INTP, surely you know well that belief in a certain concept and the externalization of said concept can be worlds apart, yet that doesn't make the concept unworthy of understanding. But that aside, they actually do impact my actions. I used to moderate and rationalize away all negative emotions arising in me. I later realize this was just suppression of my nature/invalidation of my own emotional voice via both internally/externally present values which view such expressions as 'wrong'.

It is because of the beliefs I hold that I've freed myself of such restraints and an able to voice myself without shame.

So I'm glad to see you redefined some terms; some completely different from the standard definitions... How you were expecting us to intuitively use these particular definitions is beyond me, but anyway good job!

I defined what personal interpretations I was associated to most of said words within the first post. In the part labeled Happiness, the consequent paragraphs are the definition of happiness I'm using, and the same goes for Perfection, Actualization, etc.

However, I agree that not everything was clear, and I was aware of that. It would be ridiculous of me to believe I could escape deconstructive analysis by posting this on a forum of INTPs. The poetic nature of my words was intentional, as I wished to portray an example of the very appreciation for subjectivity that I am advocating - as well as the conflict that would inevitably arise from minds who refuse to venture away from the comfort of their literally understood reality.

First of all, the OP is an obvious and shameless knockoff of XIII/Lyra. So much so it could be a parody of his/her style. You're even responding exactly the way she/he typically does.

I understand a lot of the symbolic truths XIII was attempting to make known to this forum and I sympathize with the frustration he felt at people like you who have no respect for such things. This forum was incredibly cruel towards his efforts, and from the look of things also no more accepting towards mines.

&this is not the first time I write in a similar style to this.
​

Either way you convinced me to post again, but I make no promises for the future. This has already been a massive waste of time.

Don't worry. I am done replying to you, Nyx. I've exhausted myself trying to make you understand what I see, wording it many different ways, but we fail to reconcile. To continue this argument any further would just be redundant.

 

[ijustprotectedmyidentity]

self actualization is happiness. long term, non elusive, sustaining happiness

find it and follow it

gg

 

[snafupants]

A rather terse argument I heard one time on why humans can never own happiness as a permanent state is because if that happened we would die of starvation, sleep deprivation, and so forth. Our brain chemicals - dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine - are crafted in such a manner as to facilitate the perpetuation of the species. That means that sex is good - as it affirms life - and copiously eating brownies is bad - you will feel that surge of prolactin...NOW!

 

[Jackooboy]

Perfection will never be reached. Working towards perfection is a worthy cause. Actualization will only be reached when the finite is reconciled to the infinite. The only way one reconciles with the infinite is through faith/enlightenment. Hence, one will then be content. Nihility pushes people to religion.

The ultimate goals of religions world wide is to macro and individually evolve the human spirit/consciousness into a realm of ultimate happiness or as St. Aquinas called it "blessed happiness." Religion could be looked at as the next evolutionary story. The wise will inhert the earth and the wise are the ones looking for peace, love, understanding etc. which are touted by religions.

The next large war will probably involve some sort of nuclear weapons. And the wise, those that avoid war, will not be involved hopefully, hence the wise will survive. Religions fill themselves with wisdom... following the wisdom and desiphering the wisdom is the difficult part which perhaps reveals more of itself as the person works on their own enlightenment/walk with Jesus, etc.

 

[Jackooboy]

There is now extensive research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[19][20] It is not clear, however, whether this is because of the social contact and support that result from religious activities, the greater likelihood of behaviors related to good health (such as less substance abuse), indirect forms of psychological and social activity such as optimism and volunteering, psychological factors such as "reason for being," learned coping strategies that enhance one's ability to deal with stress, or some combination of these and/or other factors.[21][22][23][24][25]
Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[26] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[27] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[28][29] A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[30] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."

 

[Da Blob]

Well, I wonder what the numbers would be if believers were directly compared to non-believers? No matter what some nonbelievers claim - God is good and good things happen for those that believe...

 

[Agent Intellect]

Fuck perfection and actualization. I'd prefer to revel in the filth of incompleteness and fantasy. Three cold screams for us soulless appendages of the Enemy! I put on my tattered cloak of nihilism each morning and shuffle off to work with a smile on my face, knowing that I can help erect my own hell one dusty box at a time, and that you are all stuck here with me. I get to be in the midst of your stampede as you run around in horror like the frightened apes you are, shaking fists at the empty heavens, enslaved as kings in your own hell - Gods shameful abortions. Just look at the decrepit slum this planet is: perfection is achieved in nothingness, and actualization only exists in the gaping maw between contradiction and paradox. If it comes down to awareness or madness, I choose the latter.

 

[snafupants]

humans are not the chosen species; humans simply have a high level of intelligence and the good luck not to have been destroyed early on in our evolutionary history, by predators, earth disasters, etc. its specious and cringe worthy how you invoke science and dna to prop up your flimsy argument.

okay, you realize that enlightened or self-illumined people (disparate terms) still retain many of their prior problems - one cannot meditate away personality girders. second, i dont think you account for aberrations in the human race - e.g., a child with down-syndrome. is he part of god's divine plan? no, how about that girl who now has permaneant brain damage because she picked up her cell phone in her car at the wrong time?

moving ahead, you also make the claim that following one's body is its own compass - the last part under "misconceptions". humans now live in an exceedingly complex environment where the right thing is not always what your body wants. in the short term, it might be advantageous to stay up four nights in a row to procure more money for one's family and keep up the rent. lastly, as far as religion, it is probably the single most thwarting encumbrance to enduring human happiness. war and terrorism for peace? god condoned preemptive attacks and racism, okay...

 

[Auburn]

okay, you realize that enlightened or self-illumined people (disparate terms) still retain many of their prior problems - one cannot meditate away personality girders. second, i dont think you account for aberrations in the human race - e.g., a child with down-syndrome. is he part of god's divine plan? no, how about that girl who now has permaneant brain damage because she picked up her cell phone in her car at the wrong time?

I wouldn't call them 'problems' as much as just natural limitations of their humanity? Also, I'm not advocating a meditating-away of anything inherent to one's personality. Quite the opposite; I believe it's crucial to wholly accept one's personality to truly reach completion.

This is why I also believe things like the MBTI are extremely useful - as they help one be aware of their cognitive processing and use that knowledge to work with their personality and not live in opposition to it.

***
​

As for aberrations: if an organism is functioning according to it's coding, then it is functioning as it should; it is functioning perfectly. Now in a case like the one you mentioned, where a girl might receive brain injury - that girl's blood/dna would still carry within it the coding for a properly functioning brain - but her physical state does not align with her coding's intended manifestation; she is not as she should be.

Down-Syndrome and other genetic disorders are a bit more complicated because they have become part of the actual coding of the organism. And since I'm advocating for all to honor their coding as perfect just as it is, then I'm essentially saying this down-syndrome child is not flawed, aren't I... ^^; I see what you're saying..

*ponders* ..If we only look to ourselves and our own coding for answers to our completion, then how can we ever know we are not flawed? If the entire human race was destroyed except for one Down-Syndrome child, how could the child ever know it actually had an illness with no other humans to use as a reference point?

I suppose when it comes to genetic anomalies, if we limit our eyesight to just our own genome, we're completely blind to possible defects existing within our own coding. Gah... yes, okay, so there can be flaws within our own coding.. I need to think about this more... >>

moving ahead, you also make the claim that following one's body is its own compass - the last part under "misconceptions". humans now live in an exceedingly complex environment where the right thing is not always what your body wants. in the short term, it might be advantageous to stay up four nights in a row to procure more money for one's family and keep up the rent. lastly, as far as religion, it is probably the single most thwarting encumbrance to enduring human happiness. war and terrorism for peace? god condoned preemptive attacks and racism, okay...

Well isn't our higher-judgment also part of the entirety of our body? The ability to prioritize and adapt to our complex environment is an aspect of our intelligence. To someone who chooses to lose sleep for the sake of paying rent, I commend them. In essence they are choosing the less of two evils; to be sleep deprived vs. to be roofless/shelter-less - which is a greater harm to the physical self.

Eh.. and I'm not advocating religion.. v,v
What I am saying is that the natural gravitation humans as a whole have towards the spiritual/mystic must also be part of our genome and therefore serves a purpose to us. Whether or not our natural need for the spiritual has manifested (in history) for our own greater good is another issue altogether. ;p

 

[Jackooboy]

I think religion/spirituality is the next evolutionary step. Science is limited, but quantum and relativity theories are starting to get to the idea of the only reality being consciousness which we don't know really what that is other than if you exist and are sentient, you're conscious (hopefully).

 

[snafupants]

I think religion/spirituality is the next evolutionary step. Science is limited, but quantum and relativity theories are starting to get to the idea of the only reality being consciousness which we don't know really what that is other than if you exist and are sentient, you're conscious (hopefully).

plants and trees are sentient, are they also conscious? this is not a facetious question, although it may have the semblance of one.

speaking more to your point, i agree with you that spirituality is the next stride for humanity, beyond rationalism, but i also think that the crux of religion and science will one day be revealed to be the same secret.

 

[Jackooboy]

plants and trees are sentient, are they also conscious? this is not a facetious question, although it may have the semblance of one.

speaking more to your point, i agree with you that spirituality is the next stride for humanity, beyond rationalism, but i also think that the crux of religion and science will one day be revealed to be the same secret.

I agree, and I'm not dismissive of science... Science and religion are both imperfect, but both point to a universal oneness in their answer.

Experience is the most important to me... science is explaining what's already going on and hopefully we won't destroy ourselves in the meantime.