tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post4116259737740810064..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Staring Into the Abyss: The Cultist, Silver Surfer, and Court JesterBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-28039605285867863912013-07-03T20:02:27.882-04:002013-07-03T20:02:27.882-04:00Well, accepting the world as it is would require o...Well, accepting the world as it is would require opposition to all technoscience, since we use technology to change the parts of the world that don't suit us. But I agree that an enlightened person will overcome harsh facts, by learning how to accept them. Still, the question is what should we accept the world as? I think we should accept nature as an undead domain of creativity in which our creative existential rebellions are thus honourable. Stoics justify their values too easily, though, because they accept nature instead as an intelligence which we ought to emulate.<br /><br />I happen to be writing something now on authenticity, so keep an eye out for more on that subject. And after that I'll write about Taoism and Stoicism (but not Buddhism, since I've already written about that in a few places here).Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-65083455144749875992013-07-03T12:42:08.542-04:002013-07-03T12:42:08.542-04:00But again I think one can understand "reality...But again I think one can understand "reality" in all its grimness while at the same time simply accepting it. One can have no delusions without demanding of oneself ascetism or philosophy. Given reality, why is ascetism more "authentic"? The universe doesn't care if one is a monk in a cave or a sybarite. This is a personal aesthetic preference that one defines, for oneself, as "authentic". If the universe is "the matrix", isn't "giving into" the matrix more authentic?<br /><br />I am feeling argumentative this week, Benjamin! <br /><br />I do look forward to your discussion of Taoism and Buddhism. Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-4419331976014032222013-07-03T08:56:07.584-04:002013-07-03T08:56:07.584-04:00Anxiety, alienation, and horror are natural reacti...Anxiety, alienation, and horror are natural reactions to awareness of the harsh facts of life, at least for introverts, omegas, and others who aren't constitutionally averse to negative feelings. We don't choose them just as we don't choose to feel pain when we physically injure ourselves. How we then deal with that initial reaction is more a matter of choice. The choice is between authenticity (asceticism or some lifestyle based on noble, unembarrassing myths/philosophies) and inauthenticity (hypocrisy, pretending the world's not so bad after all, ignoring the facts, distracting your attention with obsolete happy-talk).<br /><br />Maybe I should write something on Stoicism. That philosophy has much to recommend it, on my view, but I have some disagreements with it. It's a little like Buddhism. The goal is peace and self-control through rational mastery of the passions, and harmony with the real world through logic and scientific understanding. <br /><br />If the implication is that knowledge of the facts provides us with wisdom, this is just as fallaciously scientistic as Taoism. Stoics get around this by personifying nature as Fate, so that the facts have normative/psychological consequences. Again, this is very similar to Taoism, since Taoists talk about natural ways as functions (patterns we ought to emulate). Were all of this so, we ought to give into the genes and live out our days in the matrix. Anything else is existential rebellion and not particularly licensed by nature.<br /><br />Yeah, I think a discussion of this here would be worthwhile. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-5665417450910958342013-07-02T17:41:08.155-04:002013-07-02T17:41:08.155-04:00But this angst and alienation is in itself a choic...But this angst and alienation is in itself a choice. It requires "assuming" that things should be different. This is in itself, to me, quite a leap of faith. My poorly-read understanding of stoicism seems to be a better approach. <br /><br />I tend to the melancholy myself, of course (I doubt you get too many happy-go-lucky readers, Benjamin!) Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-90963055862949329212013-07-02T10:20:14.332-04:002013-07-02T10:20:14.332-04:00You're right about Sysiphus, Vali. If Camus me...You're right about Sysiphus, Vali. If Camus means by "happy," being content and at peace, I just think it's implausible to say that Sysiphus is happy. Camus either has a nonstandard definition of "happiness" or he's provocatively misusing the word. <br /><br />As for morality, I lay out my view in other articles (link below). I take a Nietzschean, aesthetic view of morality. As for whether there's any objective meaning or purpose, I'm not sure. Certainly there's none according to science, but the myth of the undead god entails a tragic cosmic function, namely the end of all things. <br /><br />Are aesthetic meanings entirely subjective? Well, as the philosopher Daniel Dennett says, there are objective patterns in the world, even if some aren't recognized. Scientific cosmology itself says there's a cosmic beginning, middle, and end of the universe. You need three data points to make for a pattern. Now, if the climax of this story told by cosmologists is that everything in the universe will eventually boil away or be torn apart, is that story closer to a tragedy or to a comedy? I think the former.<br /><br />I agree that the universe doesn't have objective meaning, value, or purpose in the theistic sense of one that's put there and sustained by God. But as Darwin showed, design and thus teleological patterns can arise naturally, without intelligent direction. Likewise, in its capacity as the undead god, the cosmos as a whole creates patterns as it "decays" or mindlessly changes itself in regular ways (according to natural laws). Just as we can appreciate the aesthetic quality of an artwork, we can aesthetically evaluate the objective patterns in nature.<br /><br />Horror, angst, and alienation, though, aren't objective in the sense of being mind-independent, since they're existentially authentic initial reactions by minds who become aware of the reality of their situation and who thus stand apart from the deluded masses. I'd say there's an objective process at work here, though, which means that these existential emotions aren't accidental. They're part of philosophical enlightenment.<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2012/06/morality-and-aesthetic-conception-of.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-85356501594636477712013-07-02T09:58:31.245-04:002013-07-02T09:58:31.245-04:00Angst and alienation may be felt by some types of ...Angst and alienation may be felt by some types of people more than others. Some are more melancholy or introverted than others. But I think existential authenticity begins with a recognition of the harsh facts that tend to alienate us. Those who are aware of those facts and who have never felt horror or alienation either don't understand those facts fully or hold on to some delusion or other despite the cognitive dissonance, and it's that delusion that sustains the happy thoughts. I suppose a third option is that the happy thoughts are caused by the person's character which is just set against melancholy.<br /><br />In any case, my view isn't that existentially authentic people should constantly feel bad. The bad feelings are like a trial by fire, a rite of passage, a test of willpower and creativity. Once we understand what and where we are, with a minimum of delusions, we can comfort ourselves with myths and ascetic lifestyles in an existentially honest way, not getting carried away with our values and religions, but again understanding what they are (artworks made of ideas, or part of a natural process that won't end well).Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-91853147465734398172013-07-02T05:52:47.851-04:002013-07-02T05:52:47.851-04:00The reason I thought the Lovecraftian view was dir...The reason I thought the Lovecraftian view was directed at me was because I love arguing with people, and arguing is no fun if the other side keeps agreeing with you. I can be too enthusiastic sometimes.<br /><br />As for Camus, I'm surprised you think that happiness is misplaced. Have you read "The Myth of Sisyphus"? A man rolls a boulder up a hill for all eternity, and “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” I really doubt that was a mistake.<br /><br />You said "I think we've evolved traits (intelligence, self-consciousness) that have cursed us to tend to perceive that abyss, and thus to feel alienated or to seek refuge in some delusions or myths that supplement our scientific knowledge." Where we differ is your assumption perceiving the abyss means that we must feel aliented or seek refuge in delusions. <br /><br />In your article on happiness you said "Our life also has an ethical purpose, which is to deal heroically with that horror, not to try to escape from it". But why? Where does this ethical purpose come from? The abyss? There is no objective morality, no meaning, no purpose, and this obviously means that being happy is immoral. Obviously, I am failing to confront the fact that all these meaningless atoms outside the area loosely defined as my body demand that all of the meaningless atoms inside that barrier cease to release dopamine and seratonine molecules. Clearly, my atoms are being immoral and grotesque. Clearly my atoms are behaving improperly, my atoms are hiding from the truth, my atoms are retreating into the safety of falsehoods. How grotesque.<br /><br />First you argue that the universe is inhuman and without meaning or purpose, then you imply that this lack of meaning means that the universe does have a meaning, and that this meaning is "the horror", and finally you seem to believe yourself tasked to spread the message. Here is an alternative; the universe has no meaning. Full stop. The "meaning" of a star is that it is a big ball of burning hydrogen. The "meaning" of the universe is that it is a lot of atoms all moving according to complicated rules. The "meaning" of life is that you are a collection of atoms obeying certain rules. There is no abyss, just plants and animals and stars and sunlight and life and death. <br /><br />valinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-65642981798399113852013-07-01T19:17:35.372-04:002013-07-01T19:17:35.372-04:00Benjamin: To a degree, though, isn't this ali...Benjamin: To a degree, though, isn't this alienation a deliberate choice, a turn of the mind or spirit, even? Vali's interesting response is that horror is not the only possible reaction to reality. <br /><br />Perhaps this is "stoicism" in a way?<br /> Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-4758965241516660952013-06-30T09:59:20.002-04:002013-06-30T09:59:20.002-04:00Well, your fourth option is certainly an interesti...Well, your fourth option is certainly an interesting one. It's a little like the Buddhist's challenge to egoism, which I've written about in a couple of places here (link below). You're right that my existential philosophy/religion assumes a dualism, an asymmetry between us and the rest of the world. I think we've evolved traits (intelligence, self-consciousness) that have cursed us to tend to perceive that abyss, and thus to feel alienated or to seek refuge in some delusions or myths that supplement our scientific knowledge. Science alone won't make us happy, scientism notwithstanding.<br /><br />I'm not sure why you thought that point about the culture of madness was directed at you. That's the Lovecraftian view. Not all scientific study of the universe need be pantheistic; in fact, most clearly isn't so.<br /><br />I read The Stranger a number of years ago. I always thought the reference to happiness was misplaced and I wonder if it's a poor translation from the French.<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2011/11/buddhism-and-existential-angst.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-2089862370526466992013-06-29T17:50:58.586-04:002013-06-29T17:50:58.586-04:00I've read it, and I really doubt you'll br...I've read it, and I really doubt you'll break my bubble. I think we are coming at this from very different perspectives.<br /><br />Since you yourself said this was not an exhaustive list, let me add one of my own. Another possible response to "the terrifying impersonality of the disenchanted world" is that of the main character of Camus's "The Stranger". The world present in that work is the same impersonal, empty cosmos you describe. The main characters response is to become just as impersonal as that cosmos. All of his actions are just as impersonal and empty as that of the cosmos he lives in. But instead of feeling empty, he feels <br /><br />“as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I’d been happy, and that I was happy still. For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that… there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me...” (I edited out some story spoilers, since this comes from the last page)<br /><br />By making himself nothing, he gains a connection, a sense of recognition from the universe. The universe is not alien to him because he is no different than it is. The meaninglessness of existence does not bother him, because by abandoning all hope of meaning, he find meaning in the similarity between his meaningless life and the meaningless universe.<br /><br />Pretty much all your writing assumes a basic antagonism between humans and the universe. The alternative, of course, is to evolve so as to more effectively adapt to the conditions you live in. If done successfully, the universe will no longer feel alien. We are the children (or products, as you would say) of evolution, we are 100% a part of this world, and when you say that I've "rationalize(d) our doom with a culture of madness, a pantheistic cult in which we celebrate our smallness, relishing the delirium brought on by morbid fascination with cosmic inhumanity" I'm just left confused. I am not delirious (I think). I am not morbidly fascinated; by understanding the universe I can better understand myself. So naturally I do not see the universe as cosmically inhuman. I go outside and know that astronomers have named every star I can see, and many I can't. I walk through a forest and know that every plant and animal has been named, its life cycle studied, and its every use to human beings found thousands and thousands of years ago. I do not think there is a single living thing in all the world that some human, somewhere, has not eaten. I'm small, yes. But I celebrate this by learning more and growing larger, not by gibbering madly or anything silly like that.<br /><br />A fourth person stares into the abyss, and realizes he is looking into a mirror, that he has come home.valinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-72260612048108895992013-06-28T09:41:21.331-04:002013-06-28T09:41:21.331-04:00Remember, Vali, as I say in this post, these three...Remember, Vali, as I say in this post, these three options aren't meant to be exhaustive. They just strike me as comparable in interesting ways, but there are other possible ways of responding to our existential predicament. Happiness isn't really such a way; rather, it's like living in the matrix. You're right, I've argued that happiness is unbecoming. In short, it's an existentially inauthentic lifestyle. Read at your risk, though. I don't want to burst your bubble. ;)<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2011/08/happiness-is-unbecoming.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-22950122505613101052013-06-28T06:06:39.519-04:002013-06-28T06:06:39.519-04:00My answer to all of this has always been a sort of...My answer to all of this has always been a sort of narcissism. My happiness, and to a lesser extent my continued existence, are the foundation of all the actions in my life. (I include continued existence because if given a chance at wire-heading with no drawbacks I would choose to continue in the real world.) The "meaning of life" is to attempt to find ways to better be happy. Actions are moral or immoral based on their consequences, and only their consequences. I judge consequences based on their morality. Morality is a word I use to describe the fact that being nice to other people makes me happy, and seeing other people live peaceful happy lives makes me happy. I get happy feelings when I and other people are nice due to the many years society has spend indoctrinating me. The fact that I am a pawn of the cosmos, a strange accident of an alien and inhuman universe, whose entire morality and self is dependent on chance and the machinations of others no longer makes me particularly happy or unhappy, and so is mostly irrelevant. The reason it doesn't bother me overly much is because I have spent quite a while practicing meditation and focusing on the present, so as not to allow overly complex thoughts overwhelm this happy little bubble I have built.<br /><br />Things are real if they interact in some way with with atoms. Reason is the best tool for finding how to use the knowledge you have to get whatever you want. Faith is how you trick yourself into believing, and thus more effectively using, a placebo. The self is 3 pounds of flesh floating in a soup of chemicals. And happiness is an alien god, whose commands I have been seeking to decipher for a while now, so as to better serve him and more successfully gain his rewards.<br /><br />I guess this makes me a cultist, though I would argue that my master is whatever determines what makes me happy, as opposed to madness. Unless you think they are the same? I seem to remember you elsewhere stating that choosing happiness as an end goal was a poor choice. To be fair, i am not very smart, I will be the first to admit that none of my current life strategies have been particularly successful.<br /><br />Interesting post.Valinoreply@blogger.com