Modes of Living

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about, get this, The Purpose of Life. I have been trying to come up with a good answer to the more meaningful contentions of the Unabomber Manifesto. It is the case that humanity has created an industrialized society which measurably harms the well being of its citizens (in terms of the effects of pollution, social isolation/alienation, and so on). Yet is it our nature to create such a society? From the very first records we have, the very first instant that humans have a spare moment, we take to art. People have died for the sake of art. People have deprived themselves for the sake of art. So, if it is the nature of man to create art/industrialize, and industrialization and art cause harm, what the hell do we make of the situation? The answer that I've come up with is taken from Hermeticism. Humans are divine creatures in that they can create an environment that actually shapes their own course, it is our Godly nature. Industrialization poses challenges, but for every offense there is a defense. Where a defense does not exist, it must be created. And so on, and so forth. Moreover, it may not even be the case that human welfare is truly important. That is the opinion that I've held from childhood. Especially at the time, I was very unhappy. Therefore, I resolved that the meaning of life must not be contained in happiness. All-in-all, industrialization cannot be upended. It must be used a crucible by which to synthesize altogether new ages, because there simply is nothing else. From the very first moment that the caveman creates a spear and kills the mammoth (something he could not do without his invention), we are Homo Cyborgis. This brings up another question about the hierarchy of the "modes of life". Is the film critic a lower creature than the directors that he judges? What about the simple movie consumer? What about the movie collector? While the latter experience much more, the former creates experience, embodying a Godly nature. I think most of us would generally agree that it is preferable to be a creator than a consumer. But of course, some level of consumption is necessary in order to create -- otherwise there is no material from which to synthesize new information. Therefore, is the optimum level of consumption simply the minimum number necessary to maximize creative potential? How does money and power fit into this model, if many/most important creatives are largely immaterial types that don't really care? It seems more to me that money and power are merely incidental to making good things. How does childrearing fit into this? If childrearing is the ultimate creative act, then pornography is the ultimate consumptive act. At the end of the day, I think that a more or less functional, healthy person has an appropriate drive to both consume and create, and these drives should merely be permitted to run their course. If something feels wrong, it's almost certainly wrong. And vice versa. Even the drug addict tends to hate himself after a few sessions. It's still interesting to think about consciously. I would love to hear what lain thinks.

Baby reverse engineering Aristotelian ethics

I think it's wrong to conflate art and industrialization.

>>74444 I see where you're coming from -- one is an individual endeavor, and the other is a collective one, and usually perpetuated by a minority onto the majority. Yet I see them both as the inevitable products of the human mind's idleness. Tesla got really into electricity, because what else are you going to do after you satisfy your most basic life needs? The point is, humanity cannot be completely accounted for using a primitivist mentality, as far as I see it.

>From the very first records we have, the very first instant that humans have a spare moment, we take to art. People have died for the sake of art. The amount of people who did that is greatly exaggerated. Those who did were only a very small minority. The myth that all technological development and industrial civilization are inevitable is the greatest lie of our times. Never mind that Hitler said the same thing about Nazism and Marx about Communism. Never mind that it was social and political changes that made the industrial revolution possible and not only technological changes. Also lets ignore that technology has developed at radically different speed in different societies. Technology isn't bad in itself. It's only bad when it becomes self-justifying. When people hold the opinion that technology is good because it is technology. Only then can it evolve freely without care for the problems it causes. This is how its been evolving since the 19th century. At each step creating bigger problems than it solves. Creation is good only if it has a positive impact on the world around you. Creating Marvel movies doesn't.

>>74452 >The amount of people who did that is greatly exaggerated. Those who did were only a very small minority. Is it not comparable to the small minority that invent and impose industrialization? That small elite above the simple people? It takes uncommon talents to truly create new things. >The myth that all technological development and industrial civilization are inevitable is the greatest lie of our times. But industrialization is categorically different in that it provides a plain military advantage. Game theory compels it. Game theory does not compel words like Nazism or Communism, in the Hegelian sense. >Also lets ignore that technology has developed at radically different speed in different societies. This is not a counterpoint. I suppose you're trying to take away from the idea of technological development as a universal human property. I present to you -- are some societies more human than others, some humans more human than others? The answer is yes. >Technology isn't bad in itself. It's only bad when it becomes self-justifying. When people hold the opinion that technology is good because it is technology. I suppose I don't disagree with you on the personal level, for instance, I'm not a fan of WiFi or 4G, 5G, but I don't think reasoning about it in terms of "good" or "bad" makes any sense. Is it good when a lion eats a gazelle, or bad? It doesn't matter. It is the nature of the thing (owing to game-theoretic advantage and artistic pursuit, think early hackerdom) and so it may not be reasonably judged. That's the whole crux of my post really. 5G towers near me will probably worsen my memory and my mood subtly, as long as I continue to live here and for some time beyond. But they increase The Thing, some have called it Moloch, so they will remain. And the conscientious types like me move out to New Hampshire et alia, accessing the wired from a wire. Which does illustrate the role of individual values in technological development, but any misstep in any direction that become bioincompatible, what does that imply about our nature? I once heard that our ability to consciously commit suicide qualifies us as divine beings. Maybe this is a comparable situation. >Creation is good only if it has a positive impact on the world around you. Creating Marvel movies doesn't. Marvel movies are made by Moloch, not individuals. Error of categories.

>>74456 >But industrialization is categorically different in that it provides a plain military advantage. So is agriculture, for exactly the same reasons. It is in fact categorically the same. Also, game theory is just a description of what's going on. It doesn't "compel" anything. For instance, in the repeated prisoner's dilemma, the most advantageous strategy is to assume good faith until trust is broken. In real life people and animals don't always follow that maxim.

might art provide a military or otherwise survival related advantage ? Veneration of heros, providing good example to follow, recollection of great deeds inspiring people to attempt to rival them...etc of course perhaps this doesn't go for venus crassa but maybe it fits with some of the other images...ancient cave paintings and such. >from the beginning we have art while this is true, its very difficult to tell the mark of a human except via i.e. art. Chipped peices of flint could be older, but what about a chipped peice of flint screams 'Man' and not 'rockslide', nor 'some other monkey'? very little. A painting though, probably human work. On the other hand perhaps this just goes to show how much we identify with abstract representation, perhaps this is the essence of Mankind, or at any rate our kind of intelligence....

>>74456 >But industrialization is categorically different in that it provides a plain military advantage. Game theory compels it. Game theory does not compel words like Nazism or Communism Game theory might compel it, but game theory is not real life. I'm going to explain this with something semi related I heard which describes the issue here too. You know how frequently there's a fear about "something" that needs to be fought off to make sure democracy persist? Be it some foreign country, terrorism or whatever. In a sense, that's true. You can't have a long lasting democracy if there are canons pointing at you from across the border. At an other hand, pushing too far into direction of militarizing yourself leads to a society that's not democratic, as to stay on top the state is required to keep a distance from everyone as to not leak secrets, and build weapons which increase inequality in that society. The means to protect something end up destroying it. Same is true with technology. Right now you have kids which are raised in rooms where a tv is blasting while they are watching something on an iphone. And when faced with any difficult question they copy whatever chatGPT splurs out. How long can a society like that last? What military advantage is there in having a braindead population? >This is not a counterpoint. I suppose you're trying to take away from the idea of technological development as a universal human property. I present to you -- are some societies more human than others, some humans more human than others? The answer is yes. They aren't any less or more human. As there's nothing mystical about technology. We just glorify it because we fetishize and rely on it to never seen before level mixed with a belief structure that we are somehow removed from the world. There is just technique, and it existed since forever. Drawers are technology, so are stone age hunting strategies. What really is different is that we somehow believe there's such a thing as "technology" as somehow removed from everything else. If I had to be really snarky about it, modern man is someone living in a delusion, thinking he is removed from what he so hard tries to cut up and simplify, and believing the next cut will cure his self inflicted pain, he continues cutting till he bleeds out to death. >some have called it Moloch, I will be an asshole, but I would recommend getting information from somewhere else then a website for people who try hard to impress others with how "smart" they are. >Marvel movies are made by Moloch, not individuals. Maybe instead of thinking people are directed by some mysterious vague forces, which is somewhat valid, we should just walk up to people who are doing something stupid and ask them "what the fuarrrk is wrong with you?". I somehow feel like they would be quite surprised at that question. Especially if you delivered it in a effective manner

>>74456 Those who invent technology without care for the problems it causes are subhuman. They have zero talent. Societies which develop technology without care for the problems it causes are less human, not more. >industrialization is categorically different in that it provides a plain military advantage Not all technologies are military technologies. In the 15th century the Guilds would execute people who invented or promoted new technologies. It's almost like creating technology was disadvantaged, not advantaged.

>>74462 >In the 15th century the Guilds would execute people who invented or promoted new technologies Because they wanted to protect their secret knowledge/privileged position within society. Technologies developed within the guild and carefully controlled were not grounds for execution.

>>74463 No. They hated technology they thought would disrupt their way of life. It didn't matter if a harmful technology was in their hands or someone elses. They wanted it gone. It was a reactionary movement. Not everyone in history was in favor of progress. Can we please continue their legacy

>>74470 >It was a reactionary movement. Describing an incredibly powerful economic institution as a "movement" is pretty retarded. You might be thinking of the Diggers or the Luddites, who were religious zealots in a completely different time period.

>>74471 Unfortunately, not only do most people seem to think "revolutionary = good, reactionary = bad". There's also the matter of "reactionary has the word reaction in it, which means it is reactionary if they are reacting!" seeming to also be a general school of thought. It's obnoxious, but this is really just a problem of both reading illiteracy and political illiteracy.

>>74470 The fact of the matter is that historically the only way things go back is with the societal collapse due to the corrupt system breaking under it's own weight (or when an already unstable system that can reasonably survive if things stay the same as they were as it developed is hit by plague, volcanic eruptions and "SEA PEOPLE") and/or being invaded by a more emergetic culture. Even then they retain some parts of the structure and almost immediately begin speaking about the restoration of the lost greatness. A few centuries of relative stagnation pass and then we get a renaissance period. And that's just in a geographically limited region. The rest of the world can be going through some golden age at the same time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renovatio_imperii_Romanorum You can argue that the North Korea is currently going through their little dark age period. So no, no more guilds. At least until we become a space faring species and someone watches too much 80s anime and creates a space Prussia

>>74482 >>all the other lains who want to “go back” to a poorly defined ideal time in thd past that didn’t exist (aka: reactionaries) Ecclesiastes 7:10

>>74420 >>because there simply is nothing else you should read voltaire's candide. He addresses this fallacy,

The entire theory falls apart when you consider that humans are supposed to obey God above their own nature. Just because something is in human nature doesn't make it good.

>>74707 I disagree. I believe that evil is unnatural.

>>74456 >Is it good when a lion eats a gazelle, or bad? It doesn't matter. there is no such thing as objective perspective. its good for the lion bad for the gazelle, who does it not matter for?

>>74420 >Lately, I've been thinking a lot about, get this, The Purpose of Life. the purpose of life (while the answer may be incorrect) is to explore and expand domains. you can definitely see that we need another ruler to enforce this however the trait of the amorphous symbol/age is that there is no unity and order, there is chaos much like nature. so yeah in that sense it's naturism (however not to be confused with nazism which was the failed AoA manifestation) >I have been trying to come up with a good answer to the more meaningful contentions of the Unabomber Manifesto. It is the case that humanity has created an industrialized society which measurably harms the well being of its citizens (in terms of the effects of pollution, social isolation/alienation, and so on). just watch Rewrite anime (it has 2 seasons) and you'll find a better answer. >Yet is it our nature to create such a society? From the very first records we have, the very first instant that humans have a spare moment, we take to art. People have died for the sake of art. People have deprived themselves for the sake of art. So, if it is the nature of man to create art/industrialize, and industrialization and art cause harm, what the hell do we make of the situation? well informed but it's not really exactly about artworks. it is about the freedom of expression, the meemees, and the lohgohs. right now they're keen on forcing the real third war which is through internet censorship. the more disconnected the expression and thus inter-species communication the more it goes haywire. >The answer that I've come up with is taken from Hermeticism. Humans are divine creatures in that they can create an environment that actually shapes their own course, it is our Godly nature. Industrialization poses challenges, but for every offense there is a defense. Where a defense does not exist, it must be created. And so on, and so forth. I like the way you think but most humans don't know the 8th principle. >Moreover, it may not even be the case that human welfare is truly important. That is the opinion that I've held from childhood. Especially at the time, I was very unhappy. Therefore, I resolved that the meaning of life must not be contained in happiness. All-in-all, industrialization cannot be upended. It must be used a crucible by which to synthesize altogether new ages, because there simply is nothing else. From the very first moment that the caveman creates a spear and kills the mammoth (something he could not do without his invention), we are Homo Cyborgis. we have legs and arms, we travel, we have whiskers (moustache) we feel. it is normal to have obsession in floating or moving vehicles, we are born to traverse the world and find the answer, or rather we are the only answer to that question as an "aware" species. >This brings up another question about the hierarchy of the "modes of life". Is the film critic a lower creature than the directors that he judges? What about the simple movie consumer? What about the movie collector? While the latter experience much more, the former creates experience, embodying a Godly nature. I think most of us would generally agree that it is preferable to be a creator than a consumer. But of course, some level of consumption is necessary in order to create -- otherwise there is no material from which to synthesize new information. Therefore, is the optimum level of consumption simply the minimum number necessary to maximize creative potential? How does money and power fit into this model, if many/most important creatives are largely immaterial types that don't really care? It seems more to me that money and power are merely incidental to making good things. How does childrearing fit into this? If childrearing is the ultimate creative act, then pornography is the ultimate consumptive act. existence is a reason, to have ceased in existence means there was no more reason to "be" that's why we must never lose our reason to live and explore - even in the contents or depths of our minds/dreams or through the continents and space. therefore the reason why we exist is to explore. the last species of [extinct] bird or other mammal ceased since they lost their means to travel or reproduce. there is no creature that stands still, plants and trees? maybe but they spread their seed by the golden ratio to ensure maximum spreading or bear something useful and thus we can say they're actually wiser than they look. it is important that humans should stop looking into or caring about soykaf like "hierarchy" as it is a system that prevents "some who are below a certain line" to have the right for "travel and procreation" which is anti-life. even ant societies have hierarchy but it ensures maximum efficiency. we don't need "selfish forms of hierarchy" that are mostly only motivated by greed and all forms of (human) hierarchy (motivated by greed and personal intersts) must be abolished to preven losing our reason to live (as funnily stupid as it may sound a soyberpunk dystopia ensures this demise! gotta love the virus23). >At the end of the day, I think that a more or less functional, healthy person has an appropriate drive to both consume and create, and these drives should merely be permitted to run their course. If something feels wrong, it's almost certainly wrong. And vice versa. Even the drug addict tends to hate himself after a few sessions. It's still interesting to think about consciously. I would love to hear what lain thinks. consume and create, yes it's all about resources, expression, and management. for maximum efficiency we need the benevolent AGI before it's too late or otherwise one cheeky "bigtech company" might just takeover the global society and enforce it's anti-life hierarchy system and when that happens it is truly gameover (and I fear that most bigtech are influenced in some way by Indians which have those absurdest "caste" systems even today). it's not about what feels bad/wrong since everyone is already doing their part to ensure our total demise through incorrect cascade aka negative feedback loops. the real answer for the reason of life/existence can be known by simply looking for the reason why species go extinct. have we not actually thought of the plants? what if they go full behavioral sink like the "rat utopia"? then we'd be doomed. we should expand our domain, expand in space, etc. but it seems the old dudes are still holding on to their archaic hierarchy systems and want us to be put in an enclave of pods to eat the bugs.

>>74728 I do like your concept of the value of exploration : it collapses the divide between consumption and creation. Consumption just becomes exploration of manmade things, creation becomes exploration of nature. But that said -- I think hierarchy is Natural. Why don't you?

society is self destructive due to a history of abusing pain and suffering to keep to cogs going (a lot these days enjoy misery and the thrill of complaining). the solution would be to abuse the self destruction to such a degree that new "society" or life emerges. this life would enjoy the following: fuarrrking around with everything then going on to a new thing to fuarrrk around with once it gets old. there is no survivalist imperative anymore, this is done by creating a population that have killed their inner-monkey (this doesn't mean complete obliteration, simply the default "mode" with the most control is a sentient one and not one that wants the most points and survival). i didnt read unabomber manifesto, but it seems he failed to recognize that society is self destructive and it enjoys this self destruction (success and self destruction are interchangable in our society) so enough good can simply cause a new society to make way.

>Humans are divine creatures in that they can create an environment that actually shapes their own course, it is our Godly nature. Yes, exactly. This our path. To shape the world as we want it. Naturally, the world is likely doomed. Earth is doomed to be consumed by the Sun. The Sun is doomed. Finally, the Universe is doomed as well. If there's a purpose then it's all about saving the world from destruction. And if that is impossible then sentient life will most likely not want to think about it, we'll probably construct a virtual reality fueled by a nearby black hole so that we can live in ignorance for the rest of the Universe's lifespan. Let's all love Lain