Discussion How much do you feel that life has slipped through your fingers?

[whatevs]

I was reading a Baroja book in which the protagonist, a pessimist like most of his, reflects on his past life and how everyone he used to know is now dead. I lately get assaulted by a similar sentiment. I feel like there was a time when I was alive and hopeful, but that was ages ago, and I've been spending my 20s barely existing, battling mental and physical illness, eventually signing up to a suicide forum. Time passes and we all age, and some experiences will never be available again, which means they will never be felt.

There's an ambivalence here because I'm talking about wanting lo live more but I genuinely think there's something wrong with life, and that everything one can find unjust, cruel or deceitful in things like politics is stemming from a deeper, ontological layer. Unlike some people, I don't 'desire the void', and I don't even believe in the existence of an absolute vacuum after death, but there's something in life that resembles addiction and delusion.

Most people are addicted to existing, and I say addicted in the generic sense of being hooked to something that might be actually causing harm or that isn't completely benign, and we try to delude ourselves out of watching death and suffering in the eyes. But there's something completely crooked in how life has to parasitize or devour other manifestations of itself to thrive and multiply. It really is a fucked up thing, since all lifeforms should feel some kind of discomfort when their primordial wish, existing, is cancelled out or obstructed by another biological phenomenon.

In that I find a fundamental stench, a foundational flaw, the 'original sin'. If the building blocks of life are murder, thievery and subjugation, what can we expect from what these materials manifest, no matter how they are combined in sophisticated constructions? Surely no morality will ever be valid outside of 'might makes right' going by Nature's playbook, no matter what our hypocritical documents say.

Getting back to the topic of a wasted life, for me it's very clear what has been and continues to be to blame, aside from chronic illness: living in fear. Fear of failure, fear of defending yourself, fear of other's people reaction to your true self. Fear means one thing at the end of the day: paralysis, not doing. If there's one thing I want in life is to not live in fear, but that is how I am, and that is how I have "lived", if you can call it that.

One night, back when my maternal grandparents were alive, I hastily took to the streets. My grandmother had called, they needed me to help with my demented grandfather. In this period of my life I was already well within the "diseased period", which never stopped. When I was crossing a bridge on my way, I saw a young, pretty girl sitting on the edge, with tears in her eyes. She looked directly at me and smiled. I was terrified. I was embarrassed. I was scared of the authenticity of the emotions, and I felt uncomfortable with the invitation, if that's what it was. I looked away and passed by, but I always wondered what could have happened if I got had gotten close and started a conversation.

Fear, fear has always followed me, minimizing my existence, preventing me from doing.

 

[rationaltake]

Although I'm fond of existentialism I don't really buy into the idea of freedom. In each present moment of life I have a limited range of possible responses available to me. For me it's a case of "chosen choices choosing". Things that happened way before I was born can limit or enable my current development.

My life was doomed to failure long before I was born.

I agree that fear causes inaction.

 

[whatevs]

Although I'm fond of existentialism I don't really buy into the idea of freedom. In each present moment of life I have a limited range of possible responses available to me. For me it's a case of "chosen choices choosing". Things that happened way before I was born can limit or enable my current development.

My life was doomed to failure long before I was born.

I agree that fear causes inaction.

Even if freedom is illusory we will function better acting like we have agency. We're robots that need to feel like we are not to perform well.

And who knows? There's something mysterious about flesh robots that IMHO artificial automatons will never have. It isn't 'free will', but it is something, I'm sure.

 

[chocolatebar]

Time passes and we all age, and some experiences will never be available again, which means they will never be felt.

Exactly, my friend. This is something so logic and yet very few people actually can understand. Or, perhaps, everyone understands, but prefer to delude themselves or bluntly lie to the others in an attempt to make them feel better.

Most people are addicted to existing, and I say addicted in the generic sense of being hooked to something that might be actually causing harm or that isn't completely benign, and we try to delude ourselves out of watching death and suffering in the eyes. But there's something completely crooked in how life has to parasitize or devour other manifestations of itself to thrive and multiply. It really is a fucked up thing, since all lifeforms should feel some kind of discomfort when their primordial wish, existing, is cancelled out or obstructed by another biological phenomenon.

It's what I consider a core problem with complex life. It needs to continuously end the life of other beings in order to sustain itself. By no means I think it can be considered something right, desirable or even sustainable.


If you haven't already, I would recommend a book called denial. It discusses a very interesting hypothesis about evolution and our denial of simple truths, like our decay and death.

About the fear, I will talk about it soon, when I have more free time.

 

[rationaltake]

Lately I've been thinking how strange and wasteful it is that millions of human beings each have a unique and individual consciousness. That each person has to start completely from scratch and is at the mercy of their parents. Any wisdom or knowledge acquired during a lifetime can never be directly imparted to anyone else.

 

[whatevs]

Lately I've been thinking how strange and wasteful it is that millions of human beings each have a unique and individual consciousness. That each person has to start completely from scratch and is at the mercy of their parents. Any wisdom or knowledge acquired during a lifetime can never be directly imparted to anyone else.

Spiritualists like myself like to believe something remains from each life, is transferred somewhere or SOMETHING is done with it/it does something. Reincarnation taken literally is too retarded to be it, however.

 

[rationaltake]

Spiritualists like myself like to believe something remains from each life, is transferred somewhere or SOMETHING is done with it/it does something. Reincarnation taken literally is too retarded to be it, however.

My gut feeling is that I'll be extinguished at death. Though I've thought a fair bit about Buddhist reincarnation. The Book of the Dead is interesting but I hope it's not true as I think I've got a good chance of becoming a hungry ghost!

Some Buddhist writings gave me the impression that unrightful actions I perform now will somehow result in a future reincarnation through the action of karma. I know Buddhism says there is no self. So the future being isn't even me? It seems arbitrary.

I actually feel I'm inferior material and not worth preserving in any form.

Though I think Buddhism says we're all one so presumably we're working towards a collective enlightenment?

Do you think in terms of retaining individual consciousness?

 

[whatevs]

My gut feeling is that I'll be extinguished at death. Though I've thought a fair bit about Buddhist reincarnation. The Book of the Dead is interesting but I hope it's not true as I think I've got a good chance of becoming a hungry ghost!

Some Buddhist writings gave me the impression that unrightful actions I perform now will somehow result in a future reincarnation through the action of karma. I know Buddhism says there is no self. So the future being isn't even me? It seems arbitrary.

I actually feel I'm inferior material and not worth preserving in any form.

Though I think Buddhism says we're all one so presumably we're working towards a collective enlightenment?

Do you think in terms of retaining individual consciousness?

I think our current consciousness is likely annihilated following the death of the body, but that some of the data that was gathered during our lifetime is passed on to something grander that existed before birth and permitted life to be exist in the first place.

Overall I have very diffuse and likely to be changed ideas regarding the aftermath of death but I have been granted a gigantic gift by fate in that I witnessed a poltergeist with two other persons in my teenage years on top of some other oddities throughout my life which convinced me that whatever reality is, it isn´t fully grasped by scientific materialism, even though it is one of the best platforms for studying reality. So even while in all honesty I concur that evidence shows that death is the end of everything... I' ve seen some shit, man.

 

[rationaltake]

I think our current consciousness is likely annihilated following the death of the body, but that some of the data that was gathered during our lifetime is passed on to something grander that existed before birth and permitted life to be exist in the first place.

Overall I have very diffuse and likely to be changed ideas regarding the aftermath of death but I have been granted a gigantic gift by fate in that I witnessed a poltergeist with two other persons in my teenage years on top of some other oddities throughout my life which convinced me that whatever reality is, it isn´t fully grasped by scientific materialism, even though it is one of the best platforms for studying reality. So even in all honesty I concur that evidence shows that death is the end of everything... I' ve seen some shit, man.

Wow. Interesting. I've had out of the body experiences and spent long periods in a heightened spiritual state. Otherwise known as dissociation and bipolar high. So I don't know what to think really. My interpretation of my whole life unravelled not so long ago. I tend to feel reality is highly mutable.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Time passes and we all age, and some experiences will never be available again, which means they will never be felt.

I had this dream a while ago. The details are all scrambled and fog in my mind, so forgive me if it sounds confusing.

I recall being very frantic. I was desperately trying to find a solution to prevent an event of great importance from happening. I sustained a hopeless demeanor as tears rolled down my face because deep down in my heart, I knew the truth; that didn't matter how hard I tried or how far and wide I searched, I would never obtain what I needed in due time. I remember hearing a voice that confirmed all my fears. It told me how foolish I was to believe I could go against the clock; there was no such a thing as bending or beating time. I wake up then.

That odd voice in my dream was precise, even though I didn't comprehend it at the moment. There was no prevention of the inevitable, and it's useless to believe we possess control when we are the ones being controlled; by the conceptual and invisible hands of time. It's the strangest thing how some of us allege there's too much, while others claim there's too little, but we never seem to have the correct amount, no more or less than enough.

If we could live in this peculiar world where time always awaits us, age never felt, and the experiences to be had unrestricted, would you? Even if it came with consequences? I wonder which would be the aftereffects of such a reality, even if it's just a hypothetical one.

living in fear. Fear of failure, fear of defending yourself, fear of other's people reaction to your true self. Fear means one thing at the end of the day: paralysis, not doing. If there's one thing I want in life is to not live in fear, but that is how I am, and that is how I have "lived", if you can call it that.

Fear, fear has always followed me, minimizing my existence, preventing me from doing.

I go through something similar, and It's indeed a terrible feeling the one to be alive but not to live. It's like being in a perpetual state of catatonia, like a ghost wandering aimlessly, and most of the time, not even that.

My fear is irrational; I try to tell myself, coming from a very intrinsic concatenation of my mind, a prison within myself that only I possess the keys. I could walk, free by my own volition, but somehow I can't, and I dread that I will never escape, and if I ever do, it's too late as time doesn't wait and is not kind.

There's still a lot more to say. Perhaps I will be back to do so.

 

[Pluto]

If the building blocks of life are murder, thievery and subjugation, what can we expect from what these materials manifest, no matter how they are combined in sophisticated constructions? Surely no morality will ever be valid outside of 'might makes right' going by Nature's playbook, no matter what our hypocritical documents say.

This is a great topic and I have been wanting to reply for days.

The first spiritual book I ever encountered was by an American theological author named Neale Donald Walsch. One of his main teachings was that every free choice made either comes from a place of love or fear. These are the two polarities and there is no other choice in a given moment.

He did actually mention the 'might is right' philosophy as an example of fear. Obviously such a motivation is fear of destruction, fear of loss, fear of lacking control, fear of appearing weak, etc. It's the insecure schoolyard bully who grows into a tyrannical dictator. I would caution against conflating this mentality with an interpretation of nature.

One could just as easily view nature through the lens of awe. The vastness of the galaxy. The ancient wisdom of the trees. The innocence of the lamb. The noble might of the lion. The beauty of sunrise over the ocean. I'm no poet but you get the idea.

Also, many relationships in nature are symbiotic, just as human civilisations have sometimes engaged in trade rather than war, depending on the whims of the ruler of the day. The inevitability of death and pain must be accepted gracefully, but from a divine perspective, there is more value in one act of love than a thousand conquests.

In other words, how you view a thing says more about you than it does the thing you are viewing. Viewing the world from a place of love would yield a different outlook.

She looked directly at me and smiled. I was terrified. I was embarrassed. I was scared of the authenticity of the emotions, and I felt uncomfortable with the invitation, if that's what it was. I looked away and passed by, but I always wondered what could have happened if I got had gotten close and started a conversation.

I found this story touching, as it's something I go through every day. I cringe at my silent awkwardness or stiff politeness when I yearn to feel a shared humanness, an authentic moment of communion or an opportunity to bring some warmth or blessing to another being.

The best advice to give is to understand that fear-based logic is a defence mechanism of the ego. It's supposed to protect you from harm by avoiding vulnerability, yet it clearly has the opposite effect when we find ourselves on a suicide website. Incidents that expose this are an opportunity to inspect and ultimately root out the dysfunction. There is a teaching in it and it has been sent as a signpost.

I knew a spiritual guy who used to argue that each person is like a family with an inner male side, female side and child. The child represents the part of us that is playful, the female side is nurturing and the male side involves decisive action. If these various energies are dysfunctional - for example a lack of playfulness, a lack of nurturing or a lack of strong action in response to problems - balance needs to be restored.

Just some food for thought.

 

[whatevs]

He did actually mention the 'might is right' philosophy as an example of fear. Obviously such a motivation is fear of destruction, fear of loss, fear of lacking control, fear of appearing weak, etc. It's the insecure schoolyard bully who grows into a tyrannical dictator. I would caution against conflating this mentality with an interpretation of nature.

One could just as easily view nature through the lens of awe. The vastness of the galaxy. The ancient wisdom of the trees. The innocence of the lamb. The noble might of the lion. The beauty of sunrise over the ocean. I'm no poet but you get the idea.

Also, many relationships in nature are symbiotic, just as human civilisations have sometimes engaged in trade rather than war, depending on the whims of the ruler of the day. The inevitability of death and pain must be accepted gracefully, but from a divine perspective, there is more value in one act of love than a thousand conquests.

In other words, how you view a thing says more about you than it does the thing you are viewing. Viewing the world from a place of love would yield a different outlook.

I agree wholeheartedly that what we see is, to an extent, what we are, by definition all visions and conceptions are subjective, passed through the lenses of the individual. Still, even though symbiosis does really exist in Nature, is symbiosis a more defining dynamic of life than predation or parasitism? To me it always have seemed that life was more defined by ruthlessness than some caring communion within individuals and species. The symbiosis aspect would be derived from the survivability advantages granted by cooperation, but it would be contingent, not intrinsic to life, while fear of death and lust for control seem far more essential to lifeforms.

Still, like that song by Have A Nice Life... "I don't love", so someone that experiences more contempt, jealousy, fear and hatred than loving emotions is obviously ill equipped to grasp what you might be seeing in Nature that I don't. It makes sense that something antagonistic to conflict should be a driving force in creation, since this is a dualistic world, but I've been fated to know mostly one side of the coin, and to me that side is what currently rules our planet and probably has done so since recorded history.

For this reason I will continue to believe there's something wrong with this reality and there isn't really a balance between caring and cruelty, but that caring seems to be captive and outnumbered. Gnosticky/Manichean worldview.

 

[Deleted member 847]

You don't believe that after death your consciousness will be terminated?
Doesn't that possibility terrify you?
This world doesn't care about feelings,
you can be eaten by a bunch of lions as a poor zebra,
or live a relatively safe life as a human.
And that's all random, your consciousness just happened to be the effect of the lucky brain instead of the unlucky one .
It's just might makes right, luck and thievery as you said. Look at how Ukraine is getting raped and pillaged by Putin. This would've never happened if they had nukes. Russia can rape, Russia rapes. Russia can't rape, Russia doesn't rape.

Or do you think the next world will be governed by some benevolent force that cares about your comfort? If such a force exists, why doesn't it intervene here

edit*

 

[whatevs]

You don't believe that after death your consciousness will be terminated?
Doesn't that possibility terrify you?
This world doesn't care about feelings,
you can be eaten by a bunch of lions as a poor zebra,
or live a relatively safe life as a human.
And that's all random, your consciousness just happened to be the effect of the lucky brain instead of the unlucky one .
It's just might makes right, luck and thievery as you said. Look at how Ukraine is getting raped and pillaged by Putin. This would've never happened if they had nukes. Russia can rape, Russia rapes. Russia can't rape, Russia doesn't rape.

Or do you think the next world will be governed by some benevolent force that cares about your comfort? If such a force exists, why doesn't it intervene here

edit*

Experience shows us that consciousness stops when the brain is dormant or damaged, so is logical to assume death does the same. However, I don't believe life comes from nothing or goes to nothing, so I wouldn't be incredibly shocked if there isn't a complete vacuum after death.

I don't believe in a force biased towards humans. I believe more in something that is using or consuming humans, that is above us in the cosmic food chain. At any rate, I'm open to anything. Reality is too vast and detailed for a single human mind to be able to comprehend it fully, all that we can do is devise abstract ways of grasping the world hoping that we are getting some percentage of reality right.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Experience shows us that consciousness stops when the brain is dormant or damaged, so is logical to assume death does the same. However, I don't believe life comes from nothing or goes to nothing, so I wouldn't be incredibly shocked if there isn't a complete vacuum after death.

I don't believe in a force biased towards humans. I believe more in something that is using or consuming humans, that is above us in the cosmic food chain. At any rate, I'm open to anything. Reality is too vast and detailed for a single human mind to be able to comprehend it fully, all that we can do is devise abstract ways of grasping the world hoping that we are getting some percentage of reality right.

So you're arguing for a demiurge that feeds on the suffering of living organisms? Sounds a bit
"religious" to me. I think the only food any superior being would need, and they would be made of matter like anything else in the universe, would be solar energy and minerals. I once used to believe in this theory that we were immaterial spirits trapped on a prison planet, that acted as a farm to harvest "loosh/emotional energy" from its prisoners, but now I just look at it as just another silly conspiracy, full of logical holes in it. It may be as silly as the flat earth theory, in the sense that this theory pretended the prisoners had a chance at escaping the prison by outsmarting the guards.
Even if some superadvanced aliens made a virtual reality with sentient NPCs (so basically a more rational version of the same gnostic theory of the evil archons trapping souls on earth, similar to Roko's basilisk where a super A.I creates a digital copy of the physical universe to find out which humans will help it rise to power in the real world) I don't think such a simulation would last for too long, certainly not for billions of years, or that the NPCs would be able to escape the simulation or rebel against it in anyway. I think any civilization that could create such a simulation would have to be waay smarter than its creations, and be prepared for anything.

I think evil and suffering happen because nature is blind. It created a program (pain) that helped the organism detect the there was something wrong happening in one's body, an injury detector, and that helped the organism survive, with the unwanted effect of the program still running even when the organism can't do anything about the injury, so it would be better if the pain just stopped in that situation. Of course that doesn't happen because evolution doesn't care that you feel useless pain that tortures your mind, it only cares that you reproduce.

I don't think any immaterial entity could "feed" on pain like the gnostics believe, because I think pain is just an activity in the brain, and harvesting energy from brains is stupid.
I don't even know how they got away with this stupid idea in the movie the Matrix. Using a human brain as a battery doesn't make any sense.

 

[whatevs]

So you're arguing for a demiurge that feeds on the suffering of living organisms? Sounds a bit
"religious" to me. I think the only food any superior being would need, and they would be made of matter like anything else in the universe, would be solar energy and minerals. I once used to believe in this theory that we were immaterial spirits trapped on a prison planet, that acted as a farm to harvest "loosh/emotional energy" from its prisoners, but now I just look at it as just another silly conspiracy, full of logical holes in it. It may be as silly as the flat earth theory, in the sense that this theory pretended the prisoners had a chance at escaping the prison by outsmarting the guards.
Even if some superadvanced aliens made a virtual reality with sentient NPCs (so basically a more rational version of the same gnostic theory of the evil archons trapping souls on earth, similar to Roko's basilisk where a super A.I creates a digital copy of the physical universe to find out which humans will help it rise to power in the real world) I don't think such a simulation would last for too long, certainly not for billions of years, or that the NPCs would be able to escape the simulation or rebel against it in anyway. I think any civilization that could create such a simulation would have to be waay smarter than its creations, and be prepared for anything.

Think of 'food' as a placeholder for 'something that I need and that I can obtain from you', be it energy, sustenance or data. Life could be a experiment, like suggested in 'Dark City': those that devised the simulation, or that control this experiment, are trying to 'understand the human soul' (we can make this more abstract: they are harvesting some kind of data). The turn that technology is taking, towards trying to replace humans, MIGHT be related with this. At the end what GPT-3 or the drawing AIs are asking is: 'Is there something in life that cannot be reproduced through the materialistic framework?'. 'Is there something special in a lifeform, something that can´t be simulated?'. This sounds a lot like looking for the existence of a 'soul' to me.

Yes, I don´t put complete stock on my Gnostic worldview, I just think it seems to be grasping correctly some of the crucial aspects of reality. The Mandela Effect, the symbology of the hidden eye in movies or magazines (and more symbology, that´s just the most notorious one) and my personal paranormal experiences have shown me (it is not a belief, but knowledge), that there´s something else to reality than what scientific nihilism offers.

It is not illogical to think humans aren´t at the top of the foodchain, they could easily be not. A more complex lifeform might not feed in a way we would expect, or might not domesticate their cattle in a way we could relate to. And if some advanced civilization created a simulation where they put something they don´t fully understand or that they are using for something ('souls'), they might have made the simulation so that it COULD be escaped from or figured out. Maybe THAT´S what they made the simulation for. There are many possibilities but what can be surmised is that reality is fluid and the planet is controlled by something that communicates through art and culture, be it secret socities or something stranger.

I think the Gnostics, the writers of the Matrix, and others, have simply 'struck something' with their musings, even though it isn´t perfect and was completed with bullshit (filler), but we resonate with it strongly precisely because there´s truth to it.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Think of 'food' as a placeholder for 'something that I need and that I can obtain from you', be it energy, sustenance or data. Life could be a experiment, like suggested in 'Dark City': those that devised the simulation, or that control this experiment, are trying to 'understand the human soul' (we can make this more abstract: they are harvesting some kind of data). The turn that technology is taking, towards trying to replace humans, MIGHT be related with this. At the end what GPT-3 or the drawing AIs are asking is: 'Is there something in life that cannot be reproduced through the materialistic framework?'. 'Is there something special in a lifeform, something that can´t be simulated?'. This sounds a lot like looking for the existence of a 'soul' to me.

Yes, I don´t put complete stock on my Gnostic worldview, I just think it seems to be grasping correctly some of the crucial aspects of reality. The Mandela Effect, the symbology of the hidden eye in movies or magazines (and more symbology, that´s just the most notorious one) and my personal paranormal experiences have shown me (it is not a belief, but knowledge), that there´s something else to reality than what scientific nihilism offers.

It is not illogical to think humans aren´t at the top of the foodchain, they could easily be not. A more complex lifeform might not feed in a way we would expect, or might not domesticate their cattle in a way we could relate to. And if some advanced civilization created a simulation where they put something they don´t fully understand or that they are using for something ('souls'), they might have made the simulation so that it COULD be escaped from or figured out. Maybe THAT´S what they made the simulation for. There are many possibilities but what can be surmised is that reality is fluid and the planet is controlled by something that communicates through art and culture, be it secret socities or something stranger.

I think the Gnostics, the writers of the Matrix, and others, have simply 'struck something' with their musings, even though it isn´t perfect and was completed with bullshit (filler), but we resonate with it strongly precisely because there´s truth to it.

I don't think we're doing any thing special to be honest with you. But think about it this way: aliens could be so advanced and psychopatic to be able to just press a button and create endless simulations with sentient npcs that feel pain just for their entertainment, without any scientific goal, like a video game. They could be that selfish. We'd be their cheaply and quickly made ant colony. Or think about it like the series "Westworld" where robots that.can feel pain, the hosts, are created to entertain the clients that come to the park to roleplay, and as the clients play the rpg they abuse the hosts because they don't know hosts can feel pain, or they just don't care because they think the robots are worthless anyway, they're just toys. For a type 4 civilization in the Kardashev scale, even the alien equivalent of a 12 year old playing gta could be able to afford his own "ant-colony" of fully sentient artificial minds that he can torture for fun, by putting them in various situations. I mean I could buy a bunch of cheap stuff and make an ecosystem of insects right now, and watch them live their painful lives just to be entertained by them.
What did the insects do to deserve it?
Nothing.

Another interesting way to loom at it is Roko's basilisk. In this thought experiment a post singularity super artificial intelligence has to create countless 1:1 virtual copies of the real universe where it lives, so that it can study virtual human beings and by doing so becoming better at manipulating and predicting the human beings in the real world, and eventually use that knowledge to exterminate its creators and take over the planet.

I'm not denying these possibilities, even though I don't believe in them. I'd rather believe that the real world just sucks, without blaming the gods for it.

I think the main logical points of the simulation hypothesis is that vrs with sentient beings could be at least billions for every real physical universe, so the odds of you being in one are very high. And the second point would be thag once humanity reaches the technological singularities, super A.Is will see us as bugs and will ise anything in their power to take over the planet, even creating a vr where they can study us before initiating an attack in the real world.

I've had a dream once where I was actually escaping from "simulations" just to find out I was still in one. In the lore of the dream I was able to escape even the last simulation, the one my creators didn't intend me to escape. It was the weirdest nightmare I ever had.

 

[katara]

Woah, what you said about fear really hit close to home for me. The one thing I can't relate to is feeling "alive and hopeful". I remember feeling alone as far back as I can remember. I was always alone so I daydreamed A LOT. I still think that had bad side effects even though I know people will say it's good and normal... for me it was different. I would do it so much I'd forget where I was sometimes. I now realize the reason I did that was because I was so unhappy. I later got diagnosed with ADHD and was told something about how girls usually don't get diagnosed as much as boys because our "symptoms are different". I don't know if that's really my issue, it's that I have such a boring life. i've never done anything fun, I always hated where I lived. I never had any friends, I've never dated, I've never been invited to a party, I never went on vacation... but of course no doctors will talk about that because they can't prescribe anything to a lonely loser with no friends.
I think for me personally I'd feel a lot better if I actually had some love in my life.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

I genuinely think there's something wrong with life, and that everything one can find unjust, cruel or deceitful in things like politics is stemming from a deeper, ontological layer.

But there's something completely crooked in how life has to parasitize or devour other manifestations of itself to thrive and multiply. It really is a fucked up thing, since all lifeforms should feel some kind of discomfort when their primordial wish, existing, is cancelled out or obstructed by another biological phenomenon.

In that I find a fundamental stench, a foundational flaw, the 'original sin'. If the building blocks of life are murder, thievery and subjugation, what can we expect from what these materials manifest, no matter how they are combined in sophisticated constructions? Surely no morality will ever be valid outside of 'might makes right' going by Nature's playbook, no matter what our hypocritical documents say.

It used to permeate in my mind the thought that there's intrinsical evilness inside us, like an irrefutable and permanent stain following us wherever we may go. Now, I'm more inclined to believe that's only partially true. What's truly intrinsic within ourselves is a duality, evilness, and goodness in a constant battle. The people we meet, the environment we live in, the experiences we have, and perhaps a slight genetic predisposing; the main propulsors in the determination of the side who will triumph and prosper. Evilness tends to possess a stronger and more devastating grip and impact, which is probably the reason we tend to notice it more. The results of it directly interfering with our biological and evolutionary programmation for existence and survival (self-preservation).

It's a paradoxical concept since the negative traits we perceive as a threat to our existence were precisely the ones who helped us continue existing in the first place. A psychological solution that aided us with the habiĺity to live in groups, obtain food, and partners for reproduction.

However, behaviors are not static. What once was auxiliary and necessary now has a negative effect on our lives. The same evolutionary process that granted them also gave us the morality to distinguish our actions between decent and reprehensible. Different from animals and other forms of organisms in nature, we have the ability to perfect ourselves during the course of our lives. Free to strive for the achievement of the betterment of ownself or perish in the nurturing of detrimental conduct.

 

[Graham]

Had some good times but life is now fucked

 

[Pluto]

For this reason I will continue to believe there's something wrong with this reality and there isn't really a balance between caring and cruelty, but that caring seems to be captive and outnumbered.

I wouldn't dispute this. But it depends on whether we venerate winning or love. Who is the greater, an unknown stranger who dies in the process of saving another, or one who butchers civilians to leave an historically significant legacy for his name?

Normally, such a question might be merely a matter of subjective opinion, but according to people who have achieved visionary states, treating others as one's Self - in the most literal and profound sense - is like an engine that is firing on all cylinders. It is better in the same way that a healthy human body is better than one decimated by cancer.

The collective human species is utterly primitive, yet this does not make the wider cosmos 'bad'. It is also inevitable for all to eventually be liberated from ignorance, since all the apparent conditioning is subject to the law of impermanence.

In the field of religion, Christianity has dominated the Western world simply by systematically exterminating all earlier traditions. The ways of native peoples were defeated not through discourse, but bloodshed. That must prove that Christianity is the one true religion, right?

Another example is the ancestry of my body, which is here because some people in the Netherlands felt entitled to take another man's land in a different continent. Is it survival of the fittest, or survival of the most primitive? Most people do not feel admiration for violent, narcissistic fathers even though they 'win' in battle against their spouses and children. Yes, nature has an underlying theme of survival, but if turned into a human philosophy, it quickly deviates far from our highest nature and into utter insanity.

At some point, the mind will be curious about the other way of living life. Ironically, since I just flamed the church made by political figures in his name, the historical Jesus figure is a prime example. There are many others whose names haven't been tarnished, though be warned that they will not necessarily be famous precisely because humans are primitive and value 'winning'. What would a society be like if the bulk of people operated from a spiritually advanced state?

Or, to be more pragmatic, what would a day be like if you or I were functioning from that unconditioned modus operandi? What would an authentic, pure interaction with a random stranger be like?

 

[Deleted member 847]

It used to permeate in my mind the thought that there's intrinsical evilness inside us, like an irrefutable and permanent stain following us wherever we may go. Now, I'm more inclined to believe that's only partially true. What's truly intrinsic within ourselves is a duality, evilness, and goodness in a constant battle. The people we meet, the environment we live in, the experiences we have, and perhaps a slight genetic predisposing; the main propulsors in the determination of the side who will triumph and prosper. Evilness tends to possess a stronger and more devastating grip and impact, which is probably the reason we tend to notice it more. The results of it directly interfering with our biological and evolutionary programmation for existence and survival (self-preservation).

Good and evil aren't a thing in nature.
what's real is the ability to value (see yourself) the needs of others
You either have a brain that has the hardware necessary for empathy to arise in your personality, or you don't have it
A psychopath is never in a constant battle for good and evil
A psychopath may kill and rape, but he doesn't believe he's evil,
he just doesn't value the well being of those he kills and rapes

Evolution gave you the cerebral cortex because there's strength in numbers.
The human beings that had better cooperation skills outlived those that didn't,
and having empathy makes cooperation faster and more efficient.
If you're not killing me because you actually care about me, instead of just not killing me because
you still need me for something, that makes our team more cohesive compared to our competition.
You get an advantage by caring about your tribe members, since that will also make them care for you,
but there's nothing profound about it.

If there was no advantage to being empathetic, no animal would have that trait.
Empathy works, just like having two eyes and two ears works.
And you know the point of your eyes is for you not accidentaly jump from a cliff or bump against a tree,
just like the reason for the existence of your ears is the ability to hear your tribe members screaming for help, or
hearing a lion approaching from distance so that you run away before he eats you.
Hearing and sight weren't created so that you could enjoy music and admire the beauty of the universe,
those are just side effects
Empathy doesn't exist for you to be a "loving virtuous being" either,
it's there to help the robot spread his genes
Everywhing in your body Is just a means to an end, including your consciousness which has
the function of generating sensations useful to understand your position in the environment (the end being the propagation of the selfish gene).

There are organisms that don't socialize, live "single player" lives
in which they only care for themselves and never share anything with anyone.
That could be a winning strategy for you as well, if you were able to fix your own toilet, be your own doctor
or whatever else that you usually need people for

Humanity just happened to be a social species

And you don't even feel empathy towards every living being either, you empathy is a spectrum
I don't think you would lose sleep over stepping on a mice's head and accidentally killing him
And even though I bet you would never desire to kill me or gravely injure me,
I think you wouldn't lose sleep over humiliating me with a joke or something either
you wouldn't mind ruining my day to have some selfish fun
that's the psychopath in you that values your needs over mine
evolution still left some psychopathy in all of us, you can see it everywhere around you
people betray each other all the time, they bully each other all the time

Ants and bees don't have that, they're more borg like in their behaviour

 

[whatevs]

I don't think we're doing any thing special to be honest with you. But think about it this way: aliens could be so advanced and psychopatic to be able to just press a button and create endless simulations with sentient npcs that feel pain just for their entertainment, without any scientific goal, like a video game. They could be that selfish. We'd be their cheaply and quickly made ant colony. Or think about it like the series "Westworld" where robots that.can feel pain, the hosts, are created to entertain the clients that come to the park to roleplay, and as the clients play the rpg they abuse the hosts because they don't know hosts can feel pain, or they just don't care because they think the robots are worthless anyway, they're just toys. For a type 4 civilization in the Kardashev scale, even the alien equivalent of a 12 year old playing gta could be able to afford his own "ant-colony" of fully sentient artificial minds that he can torture for fun, by putting them in various situations. I mean I could buy a bunch of cheap stuff and make an ecosystem of insects right now, and watch them live their painful lives just to be entertained by them.
What did the insects do to deserve it?
Nothing.

Another interesting way to loom at it is Roko's basilisk. In this thought experiment a post singularity super artificial intelligence has to create countless 1:1 virtual copies of the real universe where it lives, so that it can study virtual human beings and by doing so becoming better at manipulating and predicting the human beings in the real world, and eventually use that knowledge to exterminate its creators and take over the planet.

Hmm, that´s true, but that falls within the 'extracting something useful from us' category, using us for entertainment. The main thrust of my argument would be simply that considering that in Nature we see that all lifeforms are predating, parasitizing or cooperating with other lifeform, and that often there is a plethora of creatures in the hierarchy of the foodchain, above and below, the chances that we are actually an species without a superior are less than just being alone at the top.

This, together with the occultic symbology laced throughout pop culture, architecture and other avenues of expression from the elite (which implies they know metaphysicality to be real and not a sham, that insistence), and how they are making society march towards simulations and a police state while neglecting space travel makes me think these people are working for whatever that´s above us in the domination spectrum, which is very interested in developing technology towards surveillance, addiction and inmersion in fake worlds and in making people obedient and debased.

In short, humans are not free, they aren´t the proud dominators without equal that should be. They look domesticated, parasitized, herded like cattle into mandatory vaccinations and merging with a technology conveniently provided by the plutocracy that also chooses the options in the democratic process.

Whatever happened during 'Covid-19' was a violent wake-up call for everyone that had been feeling uneasy with the world, and confirmed our suspicions. Everyone else, which saw as normal that the goverment could decide a dystopian hour for the day when going out for exercise was legal for a month or two, stayed deep in their slumber, but rest assured that every day its clearer that something very strange is operating in our world. The fortunate side effect of this is that all of us, conspiracy theorists and such, are saved from the poisonous grip of scientific materialism, which appears to have clawed a robust residency in for example, your mind.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Good and evil aren't a thing in nature.

When good and evil it's mentioned tends to happen an association of the terms as being tangible, Which is not what I meant. I see it as an abstract concept acquired from a sense of morality that we develop throughout the course of our history. My perception was more directly related to what would be the natural state of humans if we didn't have the interference of the state and organized society. We can certainly look back on nature and observe certain aspects that we may classify as good or evil. We also have the possibility of divagating what true human nature is and if we are more inclined to do good or wrong actions.

Furthermore, I don't see "evilness" and "goodness" as necessarily existing in a manichean form. There is a lot of overlapping and nuances to it that will vary depending on a multitude of factors. Both can be closely related to each other despite their opposition instead of automatically classified as completely distinct entities.

A psychopath is never in a constant battle for good and evil
A psychopath may kill and rape, but he doesn't believe he's evil,
he just doesn't value the well being of those he kills and rapes

I take this as a deviation of nature. That's why I didn't hold it into consideration. Psychopathic behaviors seem to be linked more with a "chemical imbalance" in the brain than with what we were "programmed" to do. So I consider it as being an abnormality/ deviation of function, not the norm.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Hmm, that´s true, but that falls within the 'extracting something useful from us' category, using us for entertainment. The main thrust of my argument would be simply that considering that in Nature we see that all lifeforms are predating, parasitizing or cooperating with other lifeform, and that often there is a plethora of creatures in the hierarchy of the foodchain, above and below, the chances that we are actually an species without a superior are less than just being alone at the top.

This, together with the occultic symbology laced throughout pop culture, architecture and other avenues of expression from the elite (which implies they know metaphysicality to be real and not a sham, that insistence), and how they are making society march towards simulations and a police state while neglecting space travel makes me think these people are working for whatever that´s above us in the domination spectrum, which is very interested in developing technology towards surveillance, addiction and inmersion in fake worlds and in making people obedient and debased.

In short, humans are not free, they aren´t the proud dominators without equal that should be. They look domesticated, parasitized, herded like cattle into mandatory vaccinations and merging with a technology conveniently provided by the plutocracy that also chooses the options in the democratic process.

Whatever happened during 'Covid-19' was a violent wake-up call for everyone that had been feeling uneasy with the world, and confirmed our suspicions. Everyone else, which saw as normal that the goverment could decide a dystopian hour for the day when going out for exercise was legal for a month or two, stayed deep in their slumber, but rest assured that every day its clearer that something very strange is operating in our world. The fortunate side effect of this is that all of us, conspiracy theorists and such, are saved from the poisonous grip of scientific materialism, which appears to have clawed a robust residency in for example, your mind.

I just don't understand this scapegoating bullshit
Our enemy is nature, not aliens or gods
If those aliens exist they also bow to nature and will be consumed by its entropy eventually
Yes life sucks,
animals get eaten
the government can force you to live for years with a mask on your face whenever you go out of your home

But why do you have to create a supernatural evil target that's responsible for your problems,
does it make feel better to think that the reason your cancer sucks is because of Satan/Aliens,
instead of you know just dumb evolution not caring about the robots it created?
Why do you need an enemy? Do you think your metaphysical gods don't have to worry about
someone maybe having created them and running an experiment on them too? Maybe
the aliens that created our aliens were also created by some other mysterious nefarious aliens too,
the most mysterious aliens of them all.

I just think you people are trying to make life more interesting, more sophisticated than it actually is.
My worldview is simple: unintelligent design (Evolution) leads to a bad product (life that can feel pain)
You want to make a novel out of the universe with the big scary monster that we must defeat
after we die to regain our freedom, and after we defeat him animals magically won't feel like eating each other anymore,
and we will all just have dopamine rushes every second from that time on in our eternal astral lives
I don't think that's how life and existence works,
I refuse to believe we live in a drama or hollywood movie

You're just making your own version of the bible, a disorganized religion based on some cheap anecdotal evidence and
or ambiguous data points you've gathered

The all seeing eye on the dollar, and all of that similar crap, all it proves at best is that the people/organizations
that influenced the design of that dollar bill believed in something

Trust me man, if tomorrow an asteroid was going to hit Earth, the freemasons wouldn't be able to stop
it with their telekinetic occult powers
Real life doesn't care that freemasons and the president believe in telekinesis

Religion and spirituality can be very useful tools for manipulation, social cohesion and accessing the subconscious
mind (yours or that of your subordinates). Because of these practical reasons smart, rich and powerful people may choose to act as if they believed in these things.
Them making you believe that they actually believe in God or Aliens is also part of the "trick".
If I want to run for president in a religious country, I'm not gonna make it if I don't show the plebs
that I too believe in Jebus.

 

[Deleted member 847]

When good and evil it's mentioned tends to happen an association of the terms as being tangible, Which is not what I meant. I see it as an abstract concept acquired from a sense of morality that we develop throughout the course of our history. My perception was more directly related to what would be the natural state of humans if we didn't have the interference of the state and organized society. We can certainly look back on nature and observe certain aspects that we may classify as good or evil. We also have the possibility of divagating what true human nature is and if we are more inclined to do good or wrong actions.

Furthermore, I don't see "evilness" and "goodness" as necessarily existing in a manichean form. There is a lot of overlapping and nuances to it that will vary depending on a multitude of factors. Both can be closely related to each other despite their opposition instead of automatically classified as completely distinct entities.

I take this as a deviation of nature. That's why I didn't hold it into consideration. Psychopathic behaviors seem to be linked more with a "chemical imbalance" in the brain than with what we were "programmed" to do. So I consider it as being an abnormality/ deviation of function, not the norm.

The only function nature has is for you to make copies of yourself,
it doesn't care how you do it
I can think of at least of one scenario in which a species with empathy could be outright dominated and exterminated
by one that's very selfish and practical, making it more likely that in that environment to survive you'll have to be a selfish species

Let's say empathetic species Alpha travels across the andromeda galaxy and meets a primitive species that hasn't yet
achieved interstellar traveler. Because they're a moral species, they decide to let the primitives live, even if the rational
choice for long term survival is to exterminate any species that can eventually technologically develop-evolve enough to compete with you.
Now species Beta, this is a borg-like species with one mind in charge of everything, every one else in this society is just a slave
to the selfish queen that only cares about her well being and survival. She gives zero fucks about causing pain for a personal gain.
She travels across the Milky Way, our galaxy, and meets us, human beings. She studies us and realizes that short term we're
weak and totally not a threat, but because one day we might develop the technology to compete with her for resources in the galaxy,
she decides not to take any chances and kills us all, including all the other organisms on the planet that have any chance
of evolving into a sapient species one day. She can do all of this because killing comes natural to her. She decided
her brain shouldn't have an empathy chip in it. Species Alpha decided to never get rid of their empathy chip.

Because of its Moral chip still not removed, Alpha eventually fails to exterminate the primitives in andromeda, who develop
interstellar travel, and eventually become even more advanced than Alpha. The primitives that are now more advanced than alpha itself win many wars for resources and territory,
and alpha is now reduced to a very small population on the brink of extinction.

Beta, due to her "Only my feelings are important, fuck everyone else - brain chip" is still dominating her galaxy, and
a bright future awaits her. She's expanding to another galaxy. She was able to survive and thrive due to her lack of empathy, the same
empathy that got Alpha killed.

Evolution here would favor interstellar civilizations that are capable of making cold heartless decisions,
even though these beings would be silicon based, so this is more about the evolution
of memes (ideas) rather than biological evolution.
That idea that works moves into the future
the one that doesn't dies.
Similar to dna.
The organism with the needed tools for its environments moves forward
and the one without the right tool doesn't

And if I'm not wrong every single species is the result of retarded babies that are born different.
A psychopath could tell you that his deviation actually makes him more functional than you, and in
certain situations he might have an advantage that those of us that feel empathy wouldn't have,
so he's partially right on that.

Let's make a biological example (not that there's much of a difference between genes and ideas, they can
both give you 12 meters dinosaurs, but whatever)

If human beings were isolated on an island for thousands of years,
where only the human beings that can kill at least let's say 10 human beings
with their bare hands throughout their lives manage to reproduce,
evolution would give you the homo-not give a fuck-about-brutally-murdering-sapiens
and that way of life would not only be functional, because it manages to survive,
but also normal, because normality is culture, and they would call themselves normal in their culture

Empathy has worked for human beings, on this planet, but it might not work every where for every one
It could be that in certain environments having any empathy would get you killed
Having empathy in such environments would be the disfunction, the ""chemical imbalance"" in the brain

what you fail to understand is that being good is just a means to an end,
nature doesn't care if you have an extra finger or if your brain doesn't have the circuits that makes empathy happen,
if it works, it works, if it doesn't , it doesn't
when you're good you're still being evil because you're just subconsciously trying to spread your genes
and survive
every thing you do and think is derived from the selfish need to survive and reproduce

we're all just evil selfish bastards if you take the mask off

there's a reason why we want to be rewarded for every thing we do, why we don't want to be "suckers"
even when you give a homeless man a 5 euro, dollar bill, you're still getting a dopamine rush out of it

 

[WhatPowerIs]

Inaction is definitely the one trait that has defined my life, it's something I've been thinking about recently and it's even covered on a thread I created that I posted here in the Recovery forum. Of course, suicide is one way to escape this all, it is a permanent solution offering exactly what it entails, but I do not want to commit suicide, and it is my wish that nobody else would be driven to the point of wanting to commit suicide either but life is sadly never that simple although I so deeply wish it was.