5 ms·

You will die and be forgotten. Everything you do will be erased by entropy. Billions and billions of years, endless collisions and mutations, a cooling down of

by archhn 5y ago

You will die and be forgotten. Everything you do will be erased by entropy. Billions and billions of years, endless collisions and mutations, a cooling down of the universe until time itself stops. Human beings are very sensitive because we all live on top of a foundation of delusions which protects us from the life-invalidating truth. I've come to believe that every single person is insane. When you look into minds and see a humanity dripping with delusions spun up by life seeking a way to avoid confronting its futility...you can't help but feel this way. I was only able to see it after I had a near death experience. Those who have never gone beyond the threshold won't ever get it until the very end.

apocalypstyx 5y ago
May I offer one proposition? Sanity and insanity (as with morality) are meaningless propositions outside of social interaction. So there is no sanity or insanity in the nature of the universe except in this regard. It is merely the evolution-bequeathed state of human consciousness as a survival machine.
- archhn 5y ago
  I'm using insanity as a description of a delusional state of mind, i.e., a mind that is constantly playing make believe. "I'm a free person...I'm a good person...What I'm doing is important...etc." Strictly speaking, you're correct. If a mad man talks to coconuts on an island, and no one is around to observe him, is he really mad? However, we are a part of nature and social contexts will be with us as long as we survive. I think the separation between us and the universe is artificial. We are the universe. What else would we be?
  - apocalypstyx 5y ago
    I understand that. But what I think I'm trying to get at is that utterances such as "I'm a free person...I'm a good person...What I'm doing is important...etc." can be truth statements within the context of their respective systems. 'I am free, a good person, important' etc are meaningless outside of this context, of course. I'm thinking the disconnect here is with being. As an example, let me reference a king. What is a king? A son of king? That's one way. Appointed by a constitution? That's another. But is there an inherent 'kingship' outside of such definitions? Heredity is a property of the idea, not of kingship. So we can have a king but never a king which is a king. But regardless he can order my head cut off. In terms of a king as we define a king is the son of a king, then it is a truth claim to state that Arthur is a king. A social construct, a fantasy, is not precluded from instantiating something with 'power' in the world. In a way, I think experience by definition is to 'play make believe'. Our experience by definition is always going to be at least one step removed. We do not perceive the world; we perceive constructs derived from sensory data. Why I state insanity/sanity is meaningless in terms of being is that I don't see such as being applicable. As an example of what some might call insanity let us take: believing something is present which in fact is not there. Such is defined as irrational. It is contrary to the senses, as there is no sensory input to indicate such. However, if a hominid cognizes a lion in a bush, aka paranoia, and runs, there are generally two possibilities: 1) fruitless expenditure of energy decreases the individual chance of survival or 2) believing a predator near which cannot be perceived provides instances of escape where reliance on purely sensory data would have proved inadequate. Here what can be termed insanity has a chance of informing mental models of reality in ways that sensory data is too limited to do so. In this way, it can often enough better represent 'reality' in terms of survival. Even our man with the coconut could derive a survival advantage from these activities, in the sense that social creatures generally require socialization or risk cognitive decline, therefore impairing their chances of survival. (Survival is, of course, a short-term proposition which we extend implicitly into eternity, in one fashion or another, but evolution is a moment-to-moment phenomena.) Anyway, I'm by no means trying to argue with you. I'm more musing than anything.
    - archhn 5y ago
      Quite right, the ghost of Wittgenstein. These utterances are moves in language games. A pawn is a nonsensical entity within the game of checkers. However, that doesn't mean a pawn is "meaningless." It was a being constructed for a particular purpose within the game of chess. It is an illusion that the game of chess and the pawn object(being) are separable. Chess cannot exist without pawns and a pawn cannot exist without chess. The operation of plucking a pawn out of the game of chess is an invalid operation. Thus, we cannot even speak of pawns outside of chess--we must remain silent. In other words, you can't even say my utterances are meaningless "outside" the system in which they were constructed because they cannot exist outside the system. A pawn in a game of checkers is not a pawn. A pawn in your pocket may resemble a pawn, but it does not function like a pawn because it is not in a game of chess...thus it is not a pawn because it cannot do as a pawn does. I appreciate your philosophy, but from my standpoint, it is unnecessarily muddying the waters. Some people believe they are living for things that are objectively false. Just imagine a grocery clerk who believes he will someday become the king of France--in 2022, which makes Descartes original comment about this seem even more absurd. Every day he does his mundane job with unparalleled enthusiasm. He is awarded employee of the month every single month. One day, an ambitious coworker asks him how he is able to do his boring job with such high energy--what's his secret? "I am just biding my time until I become the king of France," the madman replies. "I'm not a grocery clerk...I'm a future king! Every bag I fill with groceries is but one step further towards my glorious coronation." And so it is with all who think they are going somewhere spectacular with their lives. The bleak march to the grave is enchanted by dreams of an end that cannot be. My "utterances" are not philosophical, but descriptions of what I observe to be happening around and within me. If you want to understand what I mean, you gotta play my game. I like your comment about the coconut man. Yes, it's true that delusions can have a survival advantage. In fact, I would argue that delusions are not errors, but survival adaptations. Sometimes we just don't know what people are trying to keep alive. I know people who try to keep alive an idea of themselves in spite of their own physical body.
moonshinefe 5y ago
A terrible thought indeed, one which you can never escape after seeing it. However, unless you want to live in misery, the delusions are all you have to enjoy the ride, what little time there is. But the thought always returns.
- archhn 5y ago
  Such misery is a function of one's attachment to life. There are ways of overcoming this attachment, as many religions teach. My original comment is just a rehash of hell, particularly suited for the modern narcissistic mind.

by archhn 5y ago

apocalypstyx 5y ago

May I offer one proposition? Sanity and insanity (as with morality) are meaningless propositions outside of social interaction. So there is no sanity or insanity in the nature of the universe except in this regard. It is merely the evolution-bequeathed state of human consciousness as a survival machine.

archhn 5y ago
I'm using insanity as a description of a delusional state of mind, i.e., a mind that is constantly playing make believe. "I'm a free person...I'm a good person...What I'm doing is important...etc." Strictly speaking, you're correct. If a mad man talks to coconuts on an island, and no one is around to observe him, is he really mad? However, we are a part of nature and social contexts will be with us as long as we survive. I think the separation between us and the universe is artificial. We are the universe. What else would we be?
- apocalypstyx 5y ago
  I understand that. But what I think I'm trying to get at is that utterances such as "I'm a free person...I'm a good person...What I'm doing is important...etc." can be truth statements within the context of their respective systems. 'I am free, a good person, important' etc are meaningless outside of this context, of course. I'm thinking the disconnect here is with being. As an example, let me reference a king. What is a king? A son of king? That's one way. Appointed by a constitution? That's another. But is there an inherent 'kingship' outside of such definitions? Heredity is a property of the idea, not of kingship. So we can have a king but never a king which is a king. But regardless he can order my head cut off. In terms of a king as we define a king is the son of a king, then it is a truth claim to state that Arthur is a king. A social construct, a fantasy, is not precluded from instantiating something with 'power' in the world. In a way, I think experience by definition is to 'play make believe'. Our experience by definition is always going to be at least one step removed. We do not perceive the world; we perceive constructs derived from sensory data. Why I state insanity/sanity is meaningless in terms of being is that I don't see such as being applicable. As an example of what some might call insanity let us take: believing something is present which in fact is not there. Such is defined as irrational. It is contrary to the senses, as there is no sensory input to indicate such. However, if a hominid cognizes a lion in a bush, aka paranoia, and runs, there are generally two possibilities: 1) fruitless expenditure of energy decreases the individual chance of survival or 2) believing a predator near which cannot be perceived provides instances of escape where reliance on purely sensory data would have proved inadequate. Here what can be termed insanity has a chance of informing mental models of reality in ways that sensory data is too limited to do so. In this way, it can often enough better represent 'reality' in terms of survival. Even our man with the coconut could derive a survival advantage from these activities, in the sense that social creatures generally require socialization or risk cognitive decline, therefore impairing their chances of survival. (Survival is, of course, a short-term proposition which we extend implicitly into eternity, in one fashion or another, but evolution is a moment-to-moment phenomena.) Anyway, I'm by no means trying to argue with you. I'm more musing than anything.
  - archhn 5y ago
    Quite right, the ghost of Wittgenstein. These utterances are moves in language games. A pawn is a nonsensical entity within the game of checkers. However, that doesn't mean a pawn is "meaningless." It was a being constructed for a particular purpose within the game of chess. It is an illusion that the game of chess and the pawn object(being) are separable. Chess cannot exist without pawns and a pawn cannot exist without chess. The operation of plucking a pawn out of the game of chess is an invalid operation. Thus, we cannot even speak of pawns outside of chess--we must remain silent. In other words, you can't even say my utterances are meaningless "outside" the system in which they were constructed because they cannot exist outside the system. A pawn in a game of checkers is not a pawn. A pawn in your pocket may resemble a pawn, but it does not function like a pawn because it is not in a game of chess...thus it is not a pawn because it cannot do as a pawn does. I appreciate your philosophy, but from my standpoint, it is unnecessarily muddying the waters. Some people believe they are living for things that are objectively false. Just imagine a grocery clerk who believes he will someday become the king of France--in 2022, which makes Descartes original comment about this seem even more absurd. Every day he does his mundane job with unparalleled enthusiasm. He is awarded employee of the month every single month. One day, an ambitious coworker asks him how he is able to do his boring job with such high energy--what's his secret? "I am just biding my time until I become the king of France," the madman replies. "I'm not a grocery clerk...I'm a future king! Every bag I fill with groceries is but one step further towards my glorious coronation." And so it is with all who think they are going somewhere spectacular with their lives. The bleak march to the grave is enchanted by dreams of an end that cannot be. My "utterances" are not philosophical, but descriptions of what I observe to be happening around and within me. If you want to understand what I mean, you gotta play my game. I like your comment about the coconut man. Yes, it's true that delusions can have a survival advantage. In fact, I would argue that delusions are not errors, but survival adaptations. Sometimes we just don't know what people are trying to keep alive. I know people who try to keep alive an idea of themselves in spite of their own physical body.

moonshinefe 5y ago

A terrible thought indeed, one which you can never escape after seeing it. However, unless you want to live in misery, the delusions are all you have to enjoy the ride, what little time there is. But the thought always returns.

archhn 5y ago
Such misery is a function of one's attachment to life. There are ways of overcoming this attachment, as many religions teach. My original comment is just a rehash of hell, particularly suited for the modern narcissistic mind.