tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post6519732496185318090..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Donald Trump vs The Comedians: The Farce's Existential ImportBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-9126236702236425622015-07-15T08:56:57.594-04:002015-07-15T08:56:57.594-04:00It did indeed say this, it also said several other...It did indeed say this, it also said several other odd things. Not sure how you feel about AI, but if it does manifest itself fully, it's likely to put limits on human population. Here's a link to the conversation. <br /><br />http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-06/30/google-chatbot-philosophy-morals<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-30470376711879247362015-07-14T11:06:48.253-04:002015-07-14T11:06:48.253-04:00I doubt a chat bot said that it's immoral to h...I doubt a chat bot said that it's immoral to have a child. If so, it would have been just a bit of programming by a disgruntled human programmer who happens to be an antinatalist. <br /><br />But yeah, of course an AI can be wrong. Which is worse, having children and thus forcing them to experience both pain and pleasure or ending intelligent life in the universe and thus foreclosing the possibility of happiness or of existential, heroic vengeance against the indifferent, undead natural processes that cause all the suffering? Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-22825153287642393772015-07-12T18:03:23.052-04:002015-07-12T18:03:23.052-04:00I posted a Q & A of the Google AI bot. So, you...I posted a Q & A of the Google AI bot. So, you're saying that the Google AI bot is wrong? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-48562210838214137242015-07-12T09:51:30.665-04:002015-07-12T09:51:30.665-04:00The idea is religious but only in the Nietzschean ...The idea is religious but only in the Nietzschean and Durkheimian senses. It's not theistic. Well, it's pantheistic, but again only in the Lovecraftian sense. Instead of having faith in any divine person, we should have horror and awe for undead natural forces and processes. <br /><br />As for evidence of whether nature changes, all the stuff about evolution, complexification, and emergence comes from science, not from any theology. Grey is talking about the impossibility of anything being unnatural, but this depends on what we mean by "natural." The metaphysical sense of the word is pretty much vacuous, since it includes everything physicists talk about, such as the multiverse (other universes!), singularities, other dimensions, and quantum mechanics. The sense that's relevant to my philosophy is that which is opposed not to supernature, but to artificiality, that is, nature-as-wilderness, that which is untouched by any intelligence. To not see how nature in that sense changes, by way of being replaced by our artificial habitats which exhibit higher-level patterns, such as cultural ones, is to not see much of anything at all. There's literally all the evidence in the world supporting what I say in that respect. <br /><br />I've responded to antinatalists in a couple of places on this blog (links below). Having children is a personal decision. (I have none.) But there's no sustainable morality that prescribes the end of all life that suffers in the universe--and thus the end of all life. You need living things to fulfill the potential for existential rebellion against nature's monstrosity. Without life, there's no heroism. If you don't think there's any such thing as heroic stands against injustice, natural horror, and the like, I'd say you're bound to be employing weasel words like Grey or Inmendham, stretching words like "natural" or "primitive" beyond their capacity to cover what are actually opposites, such as both selfish and selfless behaviour or the jungle and an artificial habitat like New York. I pointed that out and much more in my demolition of Inmendham's incoherent thought-streams.<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-question-of-antinatalism.html<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2014/02/debate-with-youtube-antinatalist.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-34333530080680884622015-07-11T09:27:17.213-04:002015-07-11T09:27:17.213-04:00I left the Straw Dogs quote, I have read that book...I left the Straw Dogs quote, I have read that book, but not False Dawn. "Nature isn't stale or inert but divinely destructive and creative," "There is indeed something anomalous and thus miraculous about the emergence of life and of artificiality, that is, of the worlds we build to displace the absurd wilderness." Sounds awfully religious, not to mention hilarious. I think there is far more evidence to support Gray's view than yours. <br /><br />Google AI bot:<br /><br />Human: What is immoral?<br /><br />Machine: The fact that you have a child.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-6158136175497160572015-07-10T19:40:43.653-04:002015-07-10T19:40:43.653-04:00I haven't, but I understand that his works are...I haven't, but I understand that his works are right up my alley. He's on my list of folks to read.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-60307701406063895692015-07-10T19:38:25.418-04:002015-07-10T19:38:25.418-04:00Actually, the quote is from Grey's excellent b...Actually, the quote is from Grey's excellent book Straw Dogs. I learned much from that book, but Grey's wrong about the possibility of radical creativity. Indeed, this is the essence of pantheism: nature is self-creative. Grey doesn't appreciate the complexification and emergence of properties in nature, from atoms to molecules to stars and planets and life forms societies and technologies. It's not just the same laws repeated in each domain either, which is why calling everything "natural" is pretty empty. There is indeed something anomalous and thus miraculous about the emergence of life and of artificiality, that is, of the worlds we build to displace the absurd wilderness. <br /><br />So Grey is wrong: we can change the world, but that's because nature itself changes, evolving sub-worlds. Nature isn't stale or inert but divinely destructive and creative. Through rebels like us, nature is appalled at its undeadness and so it vivifies its processes with artificial extensions of mind, such as cities, machines, cultures, and so forth.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-66249273396651535522015-07-10T17:42:42.975-04:002015-07-10T17:42:42.975-04:00Nice catch on that quote, I need to read False Daw...Nice catch on that quote, I need to read False Dawn. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-42728366161452873052015-07-10T16:35:50.693-04:002015-07-10T16:35:50.693-04:00Anonymous @ 9:50 a.m....I loved John Gray's FA...Anonymous @ 9:50 a.m....I loved John Gray's FALSE DAWN, a book which nastily skewered neoliberalism (while acknowledging the failure of the social democratic project as well). And he was a Thatcherite! Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-38366762658336515032015-07-10T14:50:50.710-04:002015-07-10T14:50:50.710-04:00Have you read anything by Julius Evola? Have you read anything by Julius Evola? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-73776166780532397082015-07-10T09:50:37.580-04:002015-07-10T09:50:37.580-04:00“Those who struggle to change the world see themse...“Those who struggle to change the world see themselves as noble, even tragic figures. Yet most of those who work for world betterment are not rebels against the scheme of things. They seek consolation for a truth they are too weak to bear. At bottom, their faith that the world can be transformed by human will is a denial of their own mortality.” <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-91931782266265326752015-07-09T17:12:56.176-04:002015-07-09T17:12:56.176-04:00An excellent caution to the "tribal" pil...An excellent caution to the "tribal" piling onto Trump (certainly a vile man), Benjamin. And a reminder that what Trump believes underpins American and western culture. <br /><br />Thanks! Brian Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-497792756072590762015-07-08T04:24:28.675-04:002015-07-08T04:24:28.675-04:00Farce is well said, and sadly well timed. Could th...Farce is well said, and sadly well timed. Could there be a greater mockery of the American system than a ballot that reads, Bush vs Clinton? That's the oligarchy just having a laugh out loud, no comedians needed. But I'm sure it will give my animal soul salve when the comedian/commentator of the moment gets in a well timed jab at whichever millionaire stands to be elected. We'll all recount it at work like something real was done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-73780737394528016622015-07-06T20:36:11.515-04:002015-07-06T20:36:11.515-04:00'I'd summarize the article by reminding us...'I'd summarize the article by reminding us that even a superficially-trivial bit of infotainment has existential significance'<br /><br />The weird thing about that idea is that either we stand every instant in a hurricane of meanings, or exhausted by a torrent of meanings we can't process, we stand in perfect stillness - but with such infotainment being an ephemera.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-58511912416781459212015-07-05T10:39:57.907-04:002015-07-05T10:39:57.907-04:00You've hit on one of the main points, Callan. ...You've hit on one of the main points, Callan. I'd summarize the article by reminding us that even a superficially-trivial bit of infotainment has existential significance, and that in this case the meaning is that it's not so one-sided (the comedians trouncing Trump): Trump ought to be mocked, but so too should the mockers who serve the plutocracy that sustains Trump and his sociopathic ilk. I see Trump's campaign itself as a form of Kafmanesque, transcendental comedy, as a giant mockery of American government and values. So who's having the last laugh, Trump or the comedians?<br /><br />I agree that some comedians here and there pause for existential reflection. But in most cases, comedy is conservative and protective of social conventions rather than subversive. It conserves more than it destroys. That's its exoteric function. I propose an esoteric one for the enlightened, in "Comedy and Existential Cosmicism," now linked in the above article.<br /><br />As I say in the article on comedy, "Both kinds of humour are means of escaping from the horror of impersonal cosmic reality, but admirable humour requires visceral hostility to delusions and the will to rest from ennobling philosophical contemplation only as needed to return to the burden in the long run. With those philosophical commitments in the background, much light can be made of our existential predicament, and this humour at our expense is like a bagpipes tune played on the field of war, to inspire the troops to face their doom with honour. Grim humour works the same as the ordinary kind, except that instead of numbing us to the mismatch between our mainstream ways of thinking and the world’s manifest inhumanity, grim laughter is bittersweet and reminds us of our mission as creative rebels: to understand our position within the undead god and to artistically make the best of it."Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-39013235243181812992015-07-05T04:33:14.956-04:002015-07-05T04:33:14.956-04:00I'm a bad reader - so is the short version tha...I'm a bad reader - so is the short version that laughing at Trump is really kinda just affirming a status quo that has trumps in it?<br /><br />Awhile back there was a comedian on TV who touched on Kim Jong-un and the funny...but also slid over to how he's a really quite dangerous guy, not just a clown to laugh at and then ignore entirely for other matters.<br /><br />Or you mean something else?Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.com