Get a grip - Page 5

On July 01 2012 10:33 Zorglub wrote: Loco I usually agree with a lot of the stuff you are saying, but I have a hard time with your claim that life is meaningless for a fact. Of course this is no fact, as in a self evident fact, it is your claim, nothing more, it certainly isn't a fact. What is a fact? and how do you verify that your fact is also my fact? You can't and you will never be able to, due to our subjective experience. Your life might be meaningless while your neighbour finds a lot of meaning in his life. Even if there was no meaning, it is still an experience, which provides a meaning in itself, namely that of an experience. We think we are so smart, but we are nothing in the big picture, life is so much bigger than us and our tiny earth. Open you eyes and mind, and be amazed of this complexity we call life and existence. We have only scratched the surface of knowledge, there is an endless world with endless possibilities to explore out there. Take a word of advice and a lesson in humility from good old Socrates who said "scio me nihil scire" "I know that I know nothing".

So do you then deny abiogenesis? The origin of life is pretty clear where we stand on the meaning scale. Unless you have a God to delude yourself with, I don't understand why you would tell me that it is my opinion that life is meaningless. It's as objective as it gets. What is a fact? We exist only due to a rare incident that happened some 3.5+ billion years ago. The right chemicals being there at the right time to create organic matter out of inorganic matter. And as far as we know it was never reproduced again in the entire known universe. What is another fact? Evolution by natural selection. The thing that seperates us from our ancestors is our level of self-awareness and the fact that it leads to a conscience of death. But is this accepted? No. People live in fear and denial of their mortality at every waking second. The only way to function is to be unaware of the fact that you will cease to exist and that you are a construction of atoms that, when disassembled, have absolutely no significance in the universe. Yes, the absurdity of being human! Living is only possible if we find meaning in our lives, and true meaning can never be found, since the universe doesn't have room for any.

I don't think we are so smart, I think we're fucking stupid, weak, and corrupt animals, eating, shitting and distracting our way to extinction. Some people have been very smart and have led us to great insights about the world we live in, though, and it is an insult to them to think the Socrates quote applies to everything. We do know more than we needed to know about our condition. And what's next in store? Lovecraft had a nice thought about it: "Life is a hideous thing, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous. Science, already oppressive with its shocking revelations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species — if separate species we be — for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world."

On July 01 2012 09:22 RiKD wrote: +1 to loco but as always i like to play a bit of freedom/choice/action/attitude devil's advocate. re: elephant man There is no denying that that would be a pretty shitty starting point/situation but he certainly had the opportunity to parlay that into making some scratch and trying to find some meaning. He could find an elephant woman or women w/ elephant man fetishes online, join a freak show circuit and make some friends, w/e he wants to try and experience, accomplish, acquire, build. Starving kids in Africa is much tougher. How much reason, agency, responsibility can small children really have? When faced with that reality it's hard to know what to think especially since most people, myself included, "delude" themselves by just not thinking about it. Changing the channel or riding a different ride like I have said in previous posts. Currently, I have about 0 impact utility wise on making any sort of dent in that situation. I could make it my life's work to try and become a famous billionaire so i would have some impact utility wise in changing the situation but the situation is still probably going to be shitty. That sounds extremely frustrating and depressing. Life can be extremely frustrating and depressing no matter what you do so I just try to take the evidence and information available and try and make choices based on that evidence/information that lead to the opposite of frustrating and depressing outcomes. As always, we don't exist, then we do, then we don't but it certainly doesn't seem meaningless while spending time in that place you want to be, doing those things you want to be doing with people (or lack of people) you want to be with. It comes down to semantics: Does occupation/transcendence/losing ones' self = delusion? Does occupying a consciousness with fun, enjoyable, stimulating, passionate occupation/meaning = deluding ones' self? Can one find "meaning" in a "meaningless" existence?

following a naturalistic approach on altruism and consequently on sympathy/pity for others one reaches the conclusion that some sort of egoism is always behind them. Meaning that there really is no action that is truly altruistic/sympathetic at all.
Sympathy/pity do have positive aspects in several instances, but to metaphysically name them the moral compass of any action that is good and then to frown upon the world that doesn't work this way and deny life in it's entirety - like Schopenhauer did - is not self evident at all (for me at least). Nietzsche on the other hand with his tragic optimism treats pity like poison (maybe even goes too far with this) and concludes that yes, life is shitty and troubling etc, but one should fight all the hardships like a warrior, even without hope; the strong man should laugh at the obstacles fate brings upon him and never give up

On July 01 2012 09:22 RiKD wrote: +1 to loco but as always i like to play a bit of freedom/choice/action/attitude devil's advocate. re: elephant man There is no denying that that would be a pretty shitty starting point/situation but he certainly had the opportunity to parlay that into making some scratch and trying to find some meaning. He could find an elephant woman or women w/ elephant man fetishes online, join a freak show circuit and make some friends, w/e he wants to try and experience, accomplish, acquire, build. Starving kids in Africa is much tougher. How much reason, agency, responsibility can small children really have? When faced with that reality it's hard to know what to think especially since most people, myself included, "delude" themselves by just not thinking about it. Changing the channel or riding a different ride like I have said in previous posts. Currently, I have about 0 impact utility wise on making any sort of dent in that situation. I could make it my life's work to try and become a famous billionaire so i would have some impact utility wise in changing the situation but the situation is still probably going to be shitty. That sounds extremely frustrating and depressing. Life can be extremely frustrating and depressing no matter what you do so I just try to take the evidence and information available and try and make choices based on that evidence/information that lead to the opposite of frustrating and depressing outcomes. As always, we don't exist, then we do, then we don't but it certainly doesn't seem meaningless while spending time in that place you want to be, doing those things you want to be doing with people (or lack of people) you want to be with. It comes down to semantics: Does occupation/transcendence/losing ones' self = delusion? Does occupying a consciousness with fun, enjoyable, stimulating, passionate occupation/meaning = deluding ones' self? Can one find "meaning" in a "meaningless" existence?

There is no parlaying. There is no winning here. I'm a bit shocked that you would think the Elephant Man could have had a life worth living. He was exploited until his death and lived most of his life in horrible pain, emotional and physical. Would you really want to 'make-do' as someone like him? I don't think so. If you want to look at life as a game, it is a zero-sum game. And it is one rough lottery. But there is nothing to be won in this lottery. The only thing every alive thing can do is reduce its amount of suffering imposed on itself from being born into the world. Every moment is an escape from the present moment, a projection into the future, an imagining of what one ought to get in order to be satiated. All motivation is born from deprivation. A deprived state of being needing to be removed. Pleasure is a negative because it is the removal of a deprivation, which is the basic state of being. Were we to need to do nothing to sustain our bodies we would do nothing and kill ourselves out of boredom.

Yes, "changing channels" is living with illusions. To protect ourselves from harm we are automatically going to do this. We cannot live while being truly conscious of things as they really are. Reality is the void. "We define only out of despair, we must have a formula... to give a facade to the void." To live is to deceive oneself over and over again.

On July 01 2012 11:11 Mariuslol wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2012 06:24 patti wrote: amen to that. if I remember loco/marius dynamic correctly, I'm surprised loco even responded to marius specifically I'll take the time here and respond to you. I'd say the difference between me and you are quite similar to the gap between me and Loco Poco. Yeah, fairly accurate. You're welcome <3

Lol, ill also take a moment; I was referring to your incessant need for attention and validation. It's pretty clear that any response from loco to you makes you wet.

On July 01 2012 12:43 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2012 09:22 RiKD wrote: +1 to loco but as always i like to play a bit of freedom/choice/action/attitude devil's advocate. re: elephant man There is no denying that that would be a pretty shitty starting point/situation but he certainly had the opportunity to parlay that into making some scratch and trying to find some meaning. He could find an elephant woman or women w/ elephant man fetishes online, join a freak show circuit and make some friends, w/e he wants to try and experience, accomplish, acquire, build. Starving kids in Africa is much tougher. How much reason, agency, responsibility can small children really have? When faced with that reality it's hard to know what to think especially since most people, myself included, "delude" themselves by just not thinking about it. Changing the channel or riding a different ride like I have said in previous posts. Currently, I have about 0 impact utility wise on making any sort of dent in that situation. I could make it my life's work to try and become a famous billionaire so i would have some impact utility wise in changing the situation but the situation is still probably going to be shitty. That sounds extremely frustrating and depressing. Life can be extremely frustrating and depressing no matter what you do so I just try to take the evidence and information available and try and make choices based on that evidence/information that lead to the opposite of frustrating and depressing outcomes. As always, we don't exist, then we do, then we don't but it certainly doesn't seem meaningless while spending time in that place you want to be, doing those things you want to be doing with people (or lack of people) you want to be with. It comes down to semantics: Does occupation/transcendence/losing ones' self = delusion? Does occupying a consciousness with fun, enjoyable, stimulating, passionate occupation/meaning = deluding ones' self? Can one find "meaning" in a "meaningless" existence? There is no parlaying. There is no winning here. I'm a bit shocked that you would think the Elephant Man could have had a life worth living. He was exploited until his death and lived most of his life in horrible pain, emotional and physical. Would you really want to 'make-do' as someone like him? I don't think so. If you want to look at life as a game, it is a zero-sum game. And it is one rough lottery. But there is nothing to be won in this lottery. The only thing every alive thing can do is reduce its amount of suffering imposed on itself from being born into the world. Every moment is an escape from the present moment, a projection into the future, an imagining of what one ought to get in order to be satiated. All motivation is born from deprivation. A deprived state of being needing to be removed. Pleasure is a negative because it is the removal of a deprivation, which is the basic state of being. Were we to need to do nothing to sustain our bodies we would do nothing and kill ourselves out of boredom. Yes, "changing channels" is living with illusions. To protect ourselves from harm we are automatically going to do this. We cannot live while being truly conscious of things as they really are. Reality is the void. "We define only out of despair, we must have a formula... to give a facade to the void." To live is to deceive oneself over and over again.

pleasure and happiness could also be translated as the recognition that one grows stronger (thus not negative or motivation-depriving, because a healthy individual always feels the need to become even better). Deprivation is a strange word because you can't really be deprived of something you never had. If it's my will to become stronger/better/faster/bigger it's not because I'm deprived of anything but because the will to power -applied to all living things- is the driving force. A truly strong man can embrace life even while nullifying his illusions (not suggesting that it's really me doing this even if I try)

Did Nietzsche seem pleased to you in the last years of his life, when he went completely mad?

You can be deprived of something you have never had. Have you never felt deprived of sex before you have had it for the first time? How about a romantic relationship? Was there not a deprivation previous to its first experiencing?

If you want to become any of those things it is because you are currently deprived of it--at least to the extent to which you want them. In order for you to seek them you need to first imagine that you will be better off as such, and if you can be better off it means you had to be worst off, thus deprived from the better state.

On July 01 2012 08:10 SakiSaki wrote: Oh cmon loco. Yes we are not here for anything, there is no grand purpose. The world is in many ways a dark and evil place. But there is also happiness and beauty and things are in many ways getting better. Not saying that will keep going forever but we do live in the least violent of times and many 3rd world countries are making extraordinary progress.These changes in the world are many times driven forward by people believing we can make the world better(an attitude that you obv despise). You might be "right" and they might be wrong, naive disillusional or w/e but I will still side with them any day. So what if our existence is meaningless, me and and majority of the worlds population are still happy to be experiencing it.

Oh I agree, in many ways it is getting better. Just recently here in Canada they lifted the ban on physician-assisted suicide. This is a really wonderful thing for all of those people who are terminally-ill at the moment and were previously denied having a dignified, painless death.

I do not despise people who do their best to improve the lives of people. How could I live with myself thinking like that? What I despise is self-important people who create inspirational content and the others who feel it is their duty to share it to inspire others to be excited about the future. The future is a lie, and I think all human societies have had the exact same propensity to see their salvation in the future. It's just that when God took the door people replaced it with science. Both are wrong-minded. I think it was Einstein who said we couldn't solve the problems we created with the same mentality that created them, but this is exactly what has always been happening and today is no different.

Im just wondering, since we are just ordinary people here at the forum, if our views today will still be the same in say, 10 years from now.

Cos to some, there might be a life changing event that would make him change his/her views.

On July 01 2012 13:03 patti wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2012 11:11 Mariuslol wrote:   On July 01 2012 06:24 patti wrote: amen to that. if I remember loco/marius dynamic correctly, I'm surprised loco even responded to marius specifically I'll take the time here and respond to you. I'd say the difference between me and you are quite similar to the gap between me and Loco Poco. Yeah, fairly accurate. You're welcome <3 Lol, ill also take a moment; I was referring to your incessant need for attention and validation. It's pretty clear that any response from loco to you makes you wet.

My need for attention and validation is extremely low, I just recently took some tests for it with my shrink. I don't feel the urge most people do.

His responses doesn't make me wet, but they sometimes worry me a little. It seems he's one of the few people on lp who can fire personal insults, mock, go out of line freely, and "always" get away with it. Usually when people go overboard, or are extremly aggressive to someone on the forum, one of the brighter invidiuals steps up and defends, stick up for whoever was recieving unwarranted abuse, flame and/or ridicule.

(Not that he often goes out of his way to do any of those, and I think he's mostly treated me with respect and dignity, just a few insults here n there. But he makes up for it by writing a lot of good shit too).

On July 01 2012 13:18 Loco wrote: Did Nietzsche seem pleased to you in the last years of his life, when he went completely mad? You can be deprived of something you have never had. Have you never felt deprived of sex before you have had it for the first time? How about a romantic relationship? Was there not a deprivation previous to its first experiencing? If you want to become any of those things it is because you are currently deprived of it--at least to the extent to which you want them. In order for you to seek them you need to first imagine that you will be better off as such, and if you can be better off it means you had to be worst off, thus deprived from the better state.

If we're gonna play this game, Schopenhauer lived to become more than 70 years old =)
Nietzsche was sick for a long time, which led him to madness, even if he had shot himself this wouldn't mean anything over what he was saying. After all N. viewed suicide as perhaps the last honorable action of a person who understands that his life can't be lived proudly anymore.

People want to be/do great in several activities, my point is that they want to because that's the way their will to power manifests. Saying that because they want it they are deprived of it, so that deprivation can be named the root of all actions is a weird way to look at it but we could be simply playing with words here and the pessimistic/optimistic outlooks they carry.

On July 01 2012 13:43 Mariuslol wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2012 13:03 patti wrote:   On July 01 2012 11:11 Mariuslol wrote:   On July 01 2012 06:24 patti wrote: amen to that. if I remember loco/marius dynamic correctly, I'm surprised loco even responded to marius specifically I'll take the time here and respond to you. I'd say the difference between me and you are quite similar to the gap between me and Loco Poco. Yeah, fairly accurate. You're welcome <3 Lol, ill also take a moment; I was referring to your incessant need for attention and validation. It's pretty clear that any response from loco to you makes you wet. My need for attention and validation is extremely low, I just recently took some tests for it with my shrink. I don't feel the urge most people do. His responses doesn't make me wet, but they sometimes worry me a little. It seems he's one of the few people on lp who can fire personal insults, mock, go out of line freely, and "always" get away with it. Usually when people go overboard, or are extremly aggressive to someone on the forum, one of the brighter invidiuals steps up and defends, stick up for whoever was recieving unwarranted abuse, flame and/or ridicule. (Not that he often goes out of his way to do any of those, and I think he's mostly treated me with respect and dignity, just a few insults here n there. But he makes up for it by writing a lot of good shit too).

Where have I personally insulted/abused you exactly?

Well, I do think your personal fixation on pop psychology and self-help is ridiculous, but how is my voicing it so unacceptable?

You're brighter than me, you know exactly where, and how many times. ( + whatever insults flew me by)

I don't have a fixation on it, and even though I keep my subjects lighter when I write about them in my blog. That doesn't mean I spend all my time on it, I'd say 0,3% of my time is spent on it, but then again 80% of all estimates are made up on the spot, so I might be off by a little.

Weird, some guy who took a small positive thread and started posting grotesque pictures of deformed humans is telling me that a little light hearted, positive blog writing is "ridiculous".

T_T

Ps, some linkz for you as well Loco Poco:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_%28contemporary%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimism_bias

Would you mind not vaguely linking me to wikipedia pages (and ones that I am obviously familiar with, too). If you have something to say or think I can learn from you put it in your own words and I will try my best to understand it. Sending me scattered information through wikipedia and not even mentioning what you think I should look at is completely useless. Also, if your assessment of my personality and worldview were as accurate as you think they are, you would have probably linked me to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

You have a fixation on it. That estimate is completely laughable... your past 4 or 5 blogs and the threads you made are all about self-improvement and your favorite sources are always pop-psychology/self-help articles. That stuff is mostly all worthless and annoying, and I am sorry if you find it mean, but it just is. If you bring this type of shit into a philosophical debate you will be laughed at and there's no way of avoiding it. This industry thrives off of ignorant people who are not intellectually capable of taking up serious philosophical studies or are "too busy" and just want to feel better about themselves in day to day life.

Loco, you twisted Lebo's words with the deprivation concept. You cannot be deprived, at a loss or otherwise of anything you have never known to exist. Clearly, very different than what you proposed.

The deprivation concept transitions with your view of the future. Your words/view prophesying the future as a lie is a proposition that does not differ at any point with respect to the feel-good inspiring videos. Unless you want to define what Future is? You would agree that predicting the result of the future is futile so we can get that out of the way. It is difficult to discern your actual view since you do not define it, instead I read fragmented ideas.

I will define Future from my view by relating it to the past:

Since there is no 'timeline of events' for the future, talking about human's paths of destruction/fallacies/illusions are as irrelevant as irrelevancy is defined. Because you believe in evolution, you can see that it is not the false 'reality' of our lives or the universe that matters, it is the progression of time on the universe. Everything that has sparked evolution-progression, from the start of the universe, to the creation of life on earth, was a result from what? You mentioned earlier something along the lines of 'dumb luck', while close to my view, you have a more absolute and narrowed focused view. It was a spontaneous reaction, the result of the evolution of time, progressing to a point that allowed for this event to result. If you have studied the cosmos, our result is not unexpected. You don't even need to study the cosmos, a simple knowledge of mathematics tells you just by the result of us having this debate, proves how plausible life is. Thus, how plausible life proliferates in the universe shouldn't be a debate. If you believe we are actually the only 'intelligent' life or only life itself, than that view is as self-absorbed as the people you speak of.

I have defined spontaneous reactions through the evolution-progression of time on the universe and I believe this an absolute. I believe that definition is a proper use of absolute thinking. The absolute concept of spontaneous reaction evolving over time is our only future and has been the driving force of human's evolution. This spontaneous result is the same in external events, like our discovery of fire, as they are from internal events (Stroke of genius, Eureka moments) from your quoted Einstein.

Man is not doomed by his very nature, because he cannot control the very nature of spontaneous events. So, your quote by Einstein is merely a variable but not the whole equation of the future. The future is defined by spontaneous events, the X part of the equation. Evolving the universe and everything in it towards something we do not know and none of us will ever live to see. But to say it's inevitably bad is as wrong as inevitably good. The idea of history endlessly repeating is not true and impossible because within the Future, lies spontaneity towards something different.

-----------------
My hypothesis is, we should not celebrate the future in relation to ourselves becoming 'better' as that selfishness is irrelevant. We should selflessly celebrate the future as the future is the creator of all. The Future is our 'God' and the 'science' you proclaim to be wrong, though science cannot be described as wrong as its very designation is to evolve, is the true religion.

Would you mind not taking everything literally? (No need for this here, you know very well that I know you're familiar with it too lol).

Somehow I think you got the joke with the links, but you took the time to write 3 sentences with crap about it, so I'll repay the favor.


My own words... Not sure if I should bite or not, you're the one who's mimicking deep philosophical thinkers, always quoting to some sentences they've said in one of their best books. I'm much more of free-flow writer than you.
And pop-psychology/self-help articles is a lot better than pop-sucidical/negative over seriousness shit. Too much negativity and douchebaggery is worthless as well.

Being laughed at is something you're afraid of, not me, that's why you never loosen up. You brought the most "shit" into this conversation with your pictures and whatnot.

The last part feels more like something personal to you, you probably was like the people you describe, then you started studying the hell out of it, reading books. And now that you feel "competent" in the area, you derrail most threads, and try and seek out these "arguments", debates, whatever you want to call them to make yourself feel smarter.


Fyi (hope im using the term right), there is a much higher road to take when "talking" to people than the one you're currently on.

2012-02-29 22:25:38 Is 5 blogs ago... Over 4 months, 5 articles.

One is a rant blog, one is about concepts from Terence McKenna, hardly self imp. And the rest are mixes of everything. Your assessment is flawed and wrong, just wanted to point that out. Even though you have a strong will, and you write with conviction, it's still poo and a sense of certainty on your behalf, not "accurate" or "fact" as you like claiming most shit you come with is. (sry for calling it shit, got a little emotional there, but I'm calm now).

I write a lot faster than average, if I were to put up everything I write and chat about It'd be around 1000 articles in those 4 months.

Also, even though you're correct in a lot off the stuff you've taken from the books you've read, still doesn't mean you can be wrong in the other 30% of the stuff you just make up, or assume.

i think marius has taken trolling to another level

On July 01 2012 16:51 Highcard wrote: Loco, you twisted Lebo's words with the deprivation concept. You cannot be deprived, at a loss or otherwise of anything you have never known to exist. Clearly, very different than what you proposed.

I have not twisted his words. It is just our understanding of the concept that is conflicting. Like yours and my own here. "You cannot be deprived, at a loss or otherwise of anything you have never known to exist." But I'm saying that you do know that these things exist since you want them. I'm saying that if a desire, a 'want' is not met, deprivation follows. But since we all have wants that are not actually fulfilled we live in a constant state of deprivation from many different things at many different moments throughout our lives. A desire is not something that merely manifests on top of a content state, although it is possible (so-called instrumental desires often will), but it is also manifested from a deprived state. And clearly, the content state is not continually so. The strongest desires, the terminal ones - or means to an end ones - obviously manifest from a deprived state, from a state of lack. Even though we do not necessarily feel deprived for it, because we are fulfilling more than not at a particular time, it remains a lack. You do not have and you want to have. I am deprived of a sexually gratifying experience therefore I will seek one out. I am not thinking of seeking one out while I am currently experiencing it and fulfilling that desire, on the other hand. The motivation is born out of the lack of the thing desired. It may just be that the word 'deprivation' comes off as confusing.


Just wanted to clear that up before addressing the rest of your post which is a bit more lengthy and I'm not going to be able to read/respond to it right now.

-----
Edit: Ah, maybe this will be clearer, I just found how Schopenhauer said it:

"All willing springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering. Fulfillment brings this to an end; yet for one wish that is fulfilled there remain at least ten that are denied. Further, desiring lasts a long time, demands and requests go on to infinity, fulfillment is short and meted out sparingly. But even the final satisfaction itself is only apparent; the wish fulfilled at once makes way for a new one; the former is a known delusion, the latter a delusion not as yet known. No attained object of willing can give a satisfaction that lasts and no longer declines; but it is always like the alms thrown to a beggar, which reprieves him today so that his misery may be prolonged till tomorrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will [which is as long as we are will-filled living beings], so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with its constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we never obtain lasting happiness or peace. Essentially, it is all the same whether we pursue or flee, fear harm or aspire to enjoyment; care for the constantly demanding will, no matter in what form, continually fills and moves consciousness; but without peace and calm, true well-being is absolutely impossible." (Die Welt, vol I, p 196)

On July 01 2012 16:52 Mariuslol wrote: Would you mind not taking everything literally? (No need for this here, you know very well that I know you're familiar with it too lol). Somehow I think you got the joke with the links, but you took the time to write 3 sentences with crap about it, so I'll repay the favor. My own words... Not sure if I should bite or not, you're the one who's mimicking deep philosophical thinkers, always quoting to some sentences they've said in one of their best books. I'm much more of free-flow writer than you. And pop-psychology/self-help articles is a lot better than pop-sucidical/negative over seriousness shit. Too much negativity and douchebaggery is worthless as well. Being laughed at is something you're afraid of, not me, that's why you never loosen up. You brought the most "shit" into this conversation with your pictures and whatnot. The last part feels more like something personal to you, you probably was like the people you describe, then you started studying the hell out of it, reading books. And now that you feel "competent" in the area, you derrail most threads, and try and seek out these "arguments", debates, whatever you want to call them to make yourself feel smarter. Fyi (hope im using the term right), there is a much higher road to take when "talking" to people than the one you're currently on.

Why do yo need a shrink if you are so good at psychoanalyzing people? Shouldn't you be the shrink?

And no, I didn't get "the joke". I would be surprised if anyone else in this thread has gotten it too. Let's make a poll about it actually.


Poll: Did you get Mariuslol's "joke" with the links?
(Vote): It was a joke?
(Vote): I'm pretty sure I did
(Vote): I skipped his post

On July 01 2012 12:43 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2012 09:22 RiKD wrote: +1 to loco but as always i like to play a bit of freedom/choice/action/attitude devil's advocate. re: elephant man There is no denying that that would be a pretty shitty starting point/situation but he certainly had the opportunity to parlay that into making some scratch and trying to find some meaning. He could find an elephant woman or women w/ elephant man fetishes online, join a freak show circuit and make some friends, w/e he wants to try and experience, accomplish, acquire, build. Starving kids in Africa is much tougher. How much reason, agency, responsibility can small children really have? When faced with that reality it's hard to know what to think especially since most people, myself included, "delude" themselves by just not thinking about it. Changing the channel or riding a different ride like I have said in previous posts. Currently, I have about 0 impact utility wise on making any sort of dent in that situation. I could make it my life's work to try and become a famous billionaire so i would have some impact utility wise in changing the situation but the situation is still probably going to be shitty. That sounds extremely frustrating and depressing. Life can be extremely frustrating and depressing no matter what you do so I just try to take the evidence and information available and try and make choices based on that evidence/information that lead to the opposite of frustrating and depressing outcomes. As always, we don't exist, then we do, then we don't but it certainly doesn't seem meaningless while spending time in that place you want to be, doing those things you want to be doing with people (or lack of people) you want to be with. It comes down to semantics: Does occupation/transcendence/losing ones' self = delusion? Does occupying a consciousness with fun, enjoyable, stimulating, passionate occupation/meaning = deluding ones' self? Can one find "meaning" in a "meaningless" existence? There is no parlaying. There is no winning here. I'm a bit shocked that you would think the Elephant Man could have had a life worth living. He was exploited until his death and lived most of his life in horrible pain, emotional and physical. Would you really want to 'make-do' as someone like him? I don't think so. If you want to look at life as a game, it is a zero-sum game. And it is one rough lottery. But there is nothing to be won in this lottery. The only thing every alive thing can do is reduce its amount of suffering imposed on itself from being born into the world. Every moment is an escape from the present moment, a projection into the future, an imagining of what one ought to get in order to be satiated. All motivation is born from deprivation. A deprived state of being needing to be removed. Pleasure is a negative because it is the removal of a deprivation, which is the basic state of being. Were we to need to do nothing to sustain our bodies we would do nothing and kill ourselves out of boredom. Yes, "changing channels" is living with illusions. To protect ourselves from harm we are automatically going to do this. We cannot live while being truly conscious of things as they really are. Reality is the void. "We define only out of despair, we must have a formula... to give a facade to the void." To live is to deceive oneself over and over again.

What's the difference between deceiving and distracting, satiating, or even healing?

If one is feeling pain they take an aspirin. If one is hungry they can eat. If one is thirsty they can drink. There is no deception there. If one is feeling the pain of existence well they can go through easy ones like sleep, eat, drink then if that doesn't work they can try other remedies. Is deception the best word?

Short Story:

Male and female partners are sitting in a room.

Female: "You know that life's a bitch and then you die right? We don't exist, then we randomly exist, then at some point we don't exist and there isn't any meaning to it."

Male: "Yup, so let's smoke this green, drink this champagne, eat these chocolate covered strawberries and fuck."

Male and Female smoke that green, drink that champagne, eat those chocolate covered strawberries and lose themselves in fucking.

The End.

Is this some big deception/facade or is it just 2 ppl tryin to live and healing the pain of existence?

If it is some big deception/facade what is the problem?

If it is some big deception/facade, out of curiosity what do you like to do to deceive yourself?