The assumption of unnatural

[Hitta]

Why do I always here arguments such as to act as if mankind is some detriment to the planet; that we are unnatural... a plague onto the precious motherly sphere that inhibits such wonderful creatures. Never does anyone take into account that that same mother earth chose us, that we are natural beings ourselves and everything that we construct is natural. All of our actions are linked to those of every living thing on the planet. Everything diverged from each other, so everything on the planet has some semblance of the nature of humanity(as humanity is just a divergence of the original single celled organism as is everything else).

[DividedsGhost]

Yeah, it's like arguing that going against our nature, which is unnatural to us, is somehow natural.

But I don't think most people use the term that way. Usually it seems to be used to represent the actions we take that are destructive to our well-being. It just happens that destroying the ecosystem can be detrimental to our survival because we rely on it just as other creatures do. Destroying the world that supports our life, as well as all others, is the same as deciding the earth should be devoid of life.

A world without life is lifeless itself. That would be very unnatural. Nothing would mean anything then, if you can grasp the implication that there is a world without interpretation.

It's like, which part of your body is you? Your foot? Your arm? Most people would say the brain. But the brain can't function, and thus exist, without the other parts. Then what's the extent of your body or even your consciousness? If we look at how our brains interpret the visuals of the world, we have our eyes. But our eyes just create an impression of the world based on the physics happening in our eyes, and our brain decides how to organize those impressions into interpretations; our brain creates the color, while our eyes just give us the potential to differentiate between what our thoughts/cognition have organized as objects.

It would be improper to say our interpretations are then illusions because they are themselves giving meaning to reality where there is none; although those interpretations can mislead us. We affect reality directly with our thoughts/perception, just as reality directly affects our thoughts/perception is but an honest truth; the conundrum of quantum physics. Basically, just having a thought creates an indirect change on reality, even if that thought was intended to produce no change. But change also brings new meaning, and continuous change brings continuous meaning.

This begs a question, what's the extent of one's life then? Because not only am I all of my body parts, but my body parts are also part of reality and at the same time contained by reality. Without the environment, I do not exist. But the environment without life, also can not exist because then without life, no one can know what reality means, and what it will mean depends on the subject. Then the environment is just as much a part of my life as my body parts are. I am just as much a part of you as you are a part of me. And it's the antithesis of existence to deny it the continuous meaning birthed through its continuous change.

I'll say it again then, a world without life is unnatural, in the full extent of the word's meaning. Anything that aims for such a goal has to be unnatural. Can you/anyone actually create a more thorough, convincing argument to allow me to understand otherwise?

[krieger]

[Lotus]

oh hitta, i think the word "unnatural" deserves more than one context. because although i agree with You that everYthing we do as man can be considered "natural," as we're a product of nature; however i think You can still use the word to describe things that replace more instinctual processes. i have an example for You.

tonight i've been helping mY sister with her senior masterY project in AP art, and her theme is somewhat related to this.

it's based on the quote, "objects can feel like plausible solutions to needs we don't understand."


she's been doing diptYchs and stuff contrasting photos portraYing instinctual human needs, fears, emotions, voids, etc. on one side, with the "plausible solutions" societY constructs on the other side. we've been describing the man-constructed solutions as "unnatural," for instance, because societY as its evolved has in manY waY inhibited us from dealing we these needs in more instinctual waYs found in nature.

[rat1]

Acting in harmony with nature so that life is preserved is one type of natural, other things are natural in the selfish sense they're instinctual and carnal but not natural in the sense they are of respect to nature. Natural harmony is the best deal for all involved. So when people use the word natural I think they are referring to natural harmony.

[Hitta]

oh hitta, i think the word "unnatural" deserves more than one context. because although i agree with You that everYthing we do as man can be considered "natural," as we're a product of nature; however i think You can still use the word to describe things that replace more instinctual processes. i have an example for You.

tonight i've been helping mY sister with her senior masterY project in AP art, and her theme is somewhat related to this.

it's based on the quote, "objects can feel like plausible solutions to needs we don't understand."


she's been doing diptYchs and stuff contrasting photos portraYing instinctual human needs, fears, emotions, voids, etc. on one side, with the "plausible solutions" societY constructs on the other side. we've been describing the man-constructed solutions as "unnatural," for instance, because societY as its evolved has in manY waY inhibited us from dealing we these needs in more instinctual waYs found in nature.

I'm gonna slightly disagree with this, as I think that everything in society represents something primal and natural. When we expand certain things, using "man-made" concepts, we always create these objects with the idealization of fulfilling primal desires. Usually in those ways those objects that we create in the name of expansion are usually more complex subsets of our primal natures need to ascertain homeostasis. In may ways, animals get in their own ways as well, most animals masturbate, most animals exhibit homosexual tendencies, most animals get depressed. What happens with mankind though as that we have taken the concept of balance to a higher, more largescale level. Our minds are more aware of the little anomalies, to state that those processes are different than the animal kingdom processes though I think is incorrect.... they are just more large scale. I think all of the problems that we have though are more or less deviations from our primal natures.... even repression itself(I think animals become repressed).

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

To me, nature simply includes everything. Even neon/poison/mechanical-y type of creatures and beings. Not just woodland forest squirrels and shit.

Nature just isn't life. It's resources, everything. There is 'no such' thing as nothing, and so nothing doesn't exist- the only thing that's real is nature, which is everything.

Imagination and creativity exists, magic is on the cusp between being real/nature and not real (unnatural). The power to 'create your own reality' in humans is really strong. And we are a part of nature, but we also have the intellect to be above it. Nature created something to be above itself, for whatever reason. Maybe there's no reason at all.

I think maybe that's the reason why so many people are their own worst enemies. Why 'humanity' always gets tied into suicidal depression, poetry and 'emo-ness.' When you are the super predator, the only thing that can really 'eat yourself' is yourself. We're probably the only type of creature that can even dwell and contemplate or fathom what 'Nothingness' is. This is all linked/related to being 'above nature' by being able to understand it and thus distance ourselves from it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

The #1 question of the day is:

How is it possible to be the 'best creature on the planet' without also having to take that power away from yourself? So a big bad human who has no real predators in the wild due to our intellect, can be so irrationally afraid of spiders that they pass out weakly and kill themselves through their emotional fear.

Or cats. Or social situations. Or... whatever your fear is.

The best creature on the planet also includes those who can make the most complicated amount of choices and is the most diverse. So therefore, humans are always like in a war between narcissism and their more giving benevolent natures. Humans can go to war and fight/kill each other over the most stupidest of reasons, and can deny equal rights to certain groups of people for even lamer excuses.

You can't really tell a human being what to do, because most are too smart to fall for that shit. We can only train ourselves, and let ourselves down. So we are all wandering between loneliness, and wanting to find things to connect with.

I think it all boils down to, we were created to be higher than nature perhaps for the purpose to constantly pave new 'natures.'

[strrrng]

We affect reality directly with our thoughts/perception, just as reality directly affects our thoughts/perception is but an honest truth; the conundrum of quantum physics.

it's not a conundrum... it's the most obvious example of a question that answers itself. your thoughts and reality are one and the same. that's why you can't isolate what "you" are, searching along limbs and other territory. because you are merely consciousness embodied, and inhabiting a physical shell separated by a film from others gives the illusion of being a unit, something "objective."

anyone who wants to make the "objective reality is different from your world" argument can feel free. the point is that the former is a collective projection that represents the peak of our imaginative and mechanical faculties... it hardly implies that everything else within us couldn't be created (or hasn't already). it's just about what's necessary on this globe.

there is no such thing as natural because that would imply an antithesis which doesn't exist. everything is produced according to the same patterns that have been governing things for millenia... yet somehow people presume to know what is natural. one can feel in communion with nature in a prison cell. there are people who can't even relax at the beach. 'natural' is supposed to be some platonic notion of organic balance; humans operate in a state of discomfort, and thus assume that the former need be achieved. LoL. nah, they're just not paying attention to the larger-scale balance that is already calibrated, whether they want to accord with it or not. this is also why they need to create symbols to objectify desires and ideals that they know neither the root nor implications of... and thus chase tails for eternity. how natural.

[strrrng]

also, if humanity hadn't existed in a state of severe imbalance for the past two thousand years, there would be no yearning for balance, and thus no symbolic network to entangle ourselves in as a means to ignore this dilemma. the simple fact is that from monarchies to the feudal system to democracy, the collective mind has accepted subservience; for some reason we all wake up every day and go to work for greedy parasites that relish every last drop of sweat we put out.. for a ******ly paycheck at a regular interval. the potential for enjoyment is predefined. it just so happens that the means to greater enjoyment almost always entail higher levels of deception.

[krieger]

[Creepy-male]

Yea I've thought of something similar to this before, people consider garbage to be garbage and bad for the environment as its unnatural, when in fact its just a natural thing that's been processed, so technically everything is bio-degradable. It's not exactly the same thing, but its similar. So yea I agree technically the entire split between natural and artificial is pointless, but in practicality it has its purpose. Artificial for example comes from a root meaning associated with Art, it means to come from art. So strictly speaking artificial isn't opposed to natural, it should be opposed to something not coming from art but arising from non-intervention from human craftsmanship.

[strrrng]

an interesting aspect of that etymology is the ar- prefix being about joining or putting together. this happens both naturally and with the influence of human intelligence. so I think 'artificial' in the negative sense refers to how something is put together, considering that same aspect is found in 'harmony.' it's the difference between engineering a computer system and babies with tentacles. to an extent, it could be said that one wouldn't perceive any 'thing' if all was functioning in harmony; apparent discord is the root of problem solving; so I think it boils down to human ignorance of larger-scale patterns (i.e. how fractals manifest in 3rd dimension is way different than 5th... what appears dysfunctional may actually be perfectly designed, with our efforts simply ineffective) that we have yet to fully integrate.

it should be opposed to something not coming from art but arising from non-intervention from human craftsmanship.

which is a tautology lol... what other than our craftsmanship has resulted in the distortions we are discussing?

[Gilly]

oh hitta, i think the word "unnatural" deserves more than one context. because although i agree with You that everYthing we do as man can be considered "natural," as we're a product of nature; however i think You can still use the word to describe things that replace more instinctual processes. i have an example for You.

tonight i've been helping mY sister with her senior masterY project in AP art, and her theme is somewhat related to this.

it's based on the quote, "objects can feel like plausible solutions to needs we don't understand."


she's been doing diptYchs and stuff contrasting photos portraYing instinctual human needs, fears, emotions, voids, etc. on one side, with the "plausible solutions" societY constructs on the other side. we've been describing the man-constructed solutions as "unnatural," for instance, because societY as its evolved has in manY waY inhibited us from dealing we these needs in more instinctual waYs found in nature.

This is the perfect response. Girl you are sharp as hell.

[marooned]

I think what people do is of course “natural”... and even that many other species would do the same in our place... I mean who doesn't want to have instant gratification and be generally satisfied? But just because something is natural doesn't mean it cannot also be a detriment. I mean cancer is natural (in that it is of nature), and it is certainly a detriment to the body. It's unnatural, however, in the sense that it is an anomaly in the body (mutated cells) and works against the rest of the body (disrupts the balance of the body, eventually destroying the entire system). So simply if considered within the realm of the body (or the concept of it), cancer may be called "unnatural" but in a broader sense it is perfectly natural.

Anyway, it's a fact that many human activities pose a threat to the continued survival of many other species on Earth and as such that human activities are decreasing the amount of life on earth. Whether it is natural or not does not change the fact, nor does it really give any value to the fact. And like others said, nobody benefits in the scenario of destruction, eventually not even humans. If “we” are out of balance in a way that is self-destructive in the end, I suppose I still might not say it's unnatural in the broad sense, even when compared to the natural drive to survive (a contradiction), but that for us it really makes little sense. Why would we wish to endanger our future by destroying that which benefits us? It's still natural of us and not unique of us--I mean if nothing ever hunted grazing animals, I'm sure they'd spread everywhere and overgraze everything eventually (it’s only “natural”)... and I'm not sure that what humans are doing is so different from that.

But to me concepts of natural vs. unnatural is all rather meaningless in the sense of the problems being discussed. Whether the destructive activities of various human groups are considered natural or not, really seems beside the point. I mean just as saying, “that’s unnatural!” can be used as meaning “that’s so wrong I don’t have to explain it, just take it as wrong and stop it, it’s UNNATURAL!” so can saying, “it’s only natural” be used to mean “we don’t need to concern ourselves with that or really look at these problems or even consider them problems, because it’s just a natural thing that’s happening here.” I mean either way, it’s meaningless.

So I guess that I would also say, even though it’s actually also meaningless to say any of this, that that which is the concept “Nature” comes in many faces and processes, and some of these processes work against each other or contradict each other. Whatever our fate, it is still “natural” but we can choose to emphasize some faces over others and choose some ways over others, and it certainly would not be “unnatural” of us to do so. And well, we will and do, anyway.

I think I agree with BionicElmo in that working to destroy life is “unnatural” because these terms are only valid in this context in terms of a world that has life… they’re used in discussions of living creatures and ecosystems and life on Earth. I mean once the terms are taken closer to their broadest sense, like it’s only natural for life to be born on a world and billions of years later cease, and for rocks to move together in the cosmos, for stars to be born and die, blah, blah, blah, then the terms go to their (pen)ultimate level of total meaninglessness in the discussion. “Natural” becomes a background noise in all the universe and so if everything that happens is “natural” then what is the point of having the word at all, or of ever using it. It comes to simply mean "it is."

[InvisibleJim]

Because Delta logic is speshul.

Whenever I here unnatural I natural elsewhere anyways.

[Creepy-male]

which is a tautology lol... what other than our craftsmanship has resulted in the distortions we are discussing?

I meant that technically speaking artificial is natural as it is something that arose naturally from people -- so that artificial isn't technically mutual exclusive with natural in a strict sense. In a strict sense artificial is mutually exclusive to things which have not undergone craftsmanship or fashioning by people. All things non-artificial are natural, but not all natural things are non-artificial -- artificial things are natural as well in a strict sense. That's what I'm saying....

Although it doesn't really matter because functionally most people consider natural to be mutually exclusive to artificial depending on the context of how the word natural is used.

[blackburry]

Why do I always here arguments such as to act as if mankind is some detriment to the planet; that we are unnatural... a plague onto the precious motherly sphere that inhibits such wonderful creatures. Never does anyone take into account that that same mother earth chose us, that we are natural beings ourselves and everything that we construct is natural. All of our actions are linked to those of every living thing on the planet. Everything diverged from each other, so everything on the planet has some semblance of the nature of humanity(as humanity is just a divergence of the original single celled organism as is everything else).

It's so natural, maybe she's born with it.


What we construct is not natural. The shit people throw out of their cars, drop carelessly. There is no reality to some hippie view of the world that "mother earth" chose us. It began with evolution, RANDOM acts of mutation that either stuck or faded...all the way up to homosapien sapiens who in turn through curiosity in their world and greed have made things as they are momentarily. What you've written is like saying we're apart of some huge cosmic plan and it's going accordingly because we were chosen to be as we are, we are one with nature therefore we can do wrong and bring no harm and if we do, it's okay because thats how things should be as they are, as alas we should not dare take responsibility for our actions. people with that view probably do not take responsiblity for a lot of things.

[Hitta]

It's so natural, maybe she's born with it.


What we construct is not natural. The shit people throw out of their cars, drop carelessly. There is no reality to some hippie view of the world that "mother earth" chose us. It began with evolution, RANDOM acts of mutation that either stuck or faded...all the way up to homosapien sapiens who in turn through curiosity in their world and greed have made things as they are momentarily. What you've written is like saying we're apart of some huge cosmic plan and it's going accordingly because we were chosen to be as we are, we are one with nature therefore we can do wrong and bring no harm and if we do, it's okay because thats how things should be as they are, as alas we should not dare take responsibility for our actions. people with that view probably do not take responsiblity for a lot of things.

You just made my argument for me by citing evolution, though seeing as you still trying to use the argument of evolution as a argument against me really means that you have no idea what I'm saying or possibly how evolution works. Let's begin.

Lightening strikes, volcano's erupt, god ejaculates on the earth..... whatever happened to spawn the first single celled organism. You have this very simplistic organism, who has a small but varied assortment of chemical reactions that are constantly occurring with the environment to maintain homeostasis. That single celled organism splits and doubles. The internal workings of each cell starts to alter in response to environmental stimuli. The organism keeps splitting, keeps evolving. Eventually you have all these divergences from that origin point. Fish, reptiles, dinosaurs, apes, humans and whatever in-between. The point I am trying to make, is that our minds, everything that our minds do... all the complexes we have... sexual desires. need to reproduce... populate the species... need to consume resources... all began at the origin point. Our minds our that homeostatic balance that the original single celled organism had escalated to a different and more large scale level. And I ask to you, what could be more natural that evolution?

[blackburry]

You just made my argument for me by citing evolution, though seeing as you still trying to use the argument of evolution as a argument against me really means that you have no idea what I'm saying or possibly how evolution works. Let's begin.

Lightening strikes, volcano's erupt, god ejaculates on the earth..... whatever happened to spawn the first single celled organism. You have this very simplistic organism, who has a small but varied assortment of chemical reactions that are constantly occurring with the environment to maintain homeostasis. That single celled organism splits and doubles. The internal workings of each cell starts to alter in response to environmental stimuli. The organism keeps splitting, keeps evolving. Eventually you have all these divergences from that origin point. Fish, reptiles, dinosaurs, apes, humans and whatever in-between. The point I am trying to make, is that our minds, everything that our minds do... all the complexes we have... sexual desires. need to reproduce... populate the species... need to consume resources... all began at the origin point. Our minds our that homeostatic balance that the original single celled organism had escalated to a different and more large scale level. And I ask to you, what could be more natural that evolution?

I merely stated I don't care how we got to the point, it still doesn't make everything that exists or has been made or will be made is natural. With your argument, no one should be held accountable for their actions because we were made this way. Sure, Sociopaths, I agree are born that way, but they should just be left free to roam, to murder your brother, sisters, friends? Ok, go seek out hitta guys.
Sure, evolution has brought humans to the point of being able to have complex thoughts and communite but C'MON, there are consequences to actions. Just because it was made by man does not make it natural. It's not some beautiful end-all-be-all, this place "Mother earth" has turned into a horrible trainwreck. Look what just happened to Belgium. Yes, we have inborn instincts to breed, consume, but polluting, Really?........skyscapers...really?....shopping malls everywhere........obese people... that shit is disgusting. I claim no part of it and it lays no claim on me, it is not natural.

[Crispy]

saying it's not natural is implying its supernatural which is lololol

[strrrng]

In a strict sense artificial is mutually exclusive to things which have not undergone craftsmanship or fashioning by people.

since human perception implies artifice, I don't see them as mutually-exclusive, just in antagonistic balance.

[rat1]

I am not saying all things aren't natural, but that there's two kinds of natural and that one is preferable to the other just like eating poison berries isn't preferred over.. Not eating them.

[Hitta]

I merely stated I don't care how we got to the point, it still doesn't make everything that exists or has been made or will be made is natural. With your argument, no one should be held accountable for their actions because we were made this way. Sure, Sociopaths, I agree are born that way, but they should just be left free to roam, to murder your brother, sisters, friends? Ok, go seek out hitta guys.
Sure, evolution has brought humans to the point of being able to have complex thoughts and communite but C'MON, there are consequences to actions. Just because it was made by man does not make it natural. It's not some beautiful end-all-be-all, this place "Mother earth" has turned into a horrible trainwreck. Look what just happened to Belgium. Yes, we have inborn instincts to breed, consume, but polluting, Really?........skyscapers...really?....shopping malls everywhere........obese people... that shit is disgusting. I claim no part of it and it lays no claim on me, it is not natural.

Actually it does. Sociopaths aren't born that way for starters. Nobody is born anyway. We have our genetics that are the root, but everything has to interact with the environment. You're genetics don't just say "hey i'm gonna kill someone".... they have to have the right stimuli. Sociopaths have fringe ideas on how to maintain equilibrium, but they always start in the root of social order. Pollution, wastes, etc are kind of like the same problems that exist at the cellular level when threats to balance via the environment come up. If an animal lived in its own shit it'd probably die... but what does it do instead... it moves out of the way and shits somewhere else. When we pollute the world and do things, it's just mankind attempting to find a semblance of balance with it's needs and the its resources. We try to survive as a species and keep optimal population. So we create factories, plants, etc to do whatever we can to distribute those resources, while trying to maintain the most optimal living conditions. Mankind is still adapting and evolving. Evolution doesn't stop at significant physical structures... social conscious is always evolving as well.

[Hitta]

I am not saying all things aren't natural, but that there's two kinds of natural and that one is preferable to the other just like eating poison berries isn't preferred over.. Not eating them.

Lol, then you'd have to ask yourself where the impulses to eat the poisoned berries come from(suicide or accidental) and why those impulses were in existence. The second natural you are talking about revolves around predominate social opinion.

[rat1]

You can say it's social opinion, but there is a natural organization of the biosphere which is like a social structure. I understand there are impulses, and we have conflicting impulses.. no one has just one impulse and one option, otherwise we'd be machines.
What I'm saying is the temporary impulse to kill yourself is always secondary to the long term will to survive. Long term survival is always preferred because the concept even generalizes to the unknown life after death. Even in the most miserable circumstances the will to live is the more favorable long term option.

[Hitta]

You can say it's social opinion, but there is a natural organization of the biosphere which is like a social structure. I understand there are impulses, and we have conflicting impulses.. no one has just one impulse and one option, otherwise we'd be machines.
What I'm saying is the temporary impulse to kill yourself is always secondary to the long term will to survive.

Well you are saying the impulses are natural though and I agree. I'm arguing that they are all natural, which is why I say that everything is natural. When someone pollutes it is natural, and it is natural for people to get together and be like... that pollution is bad.

[rat1]

Ive never said they aren't all natural, just that one is more natural because it is more. The will to survive always wins out over the will to die in the long run. People commit suicide because they aren't thinking, people put dogs in a den of their own shit because they aren't thinking. Yeah they followed their impulses, but it was a lesser impulse.. the impulse took less information into consideration.

Since we don't know where we go when we die, even in the very worst circumstances it is still better to choose the long term option of struggling to survive; because it generalizes to the afterlife.

It is like a tribe of indians who kills the weak buffalo, doesn't kill the pregnant buffalo, and despite being hungry resists the urge to slaughter them all; the long term option is better and more favorable for all involved in every way. Now sure the indian could be idiotic and kill all the buffalo.

And then you could say 'well what if there was a fringe indian who wasn't getting his fair share of food'. Well why did the indians give birth to that unwanted indian in the first place? Why did our parents give birth to us?

I've seen parents who just have kids for their own comfort, not really caring about the kids awareness, and that's about the worst thing you can do. I agree it does create destructive impulses; the impulses started somewhere though. And if the fringe indian does manage to overcome his destructive impulses which he was born into, he is even stronger in the end since he is independent and will probably rise to the top as a leader.

Another thing is that life always comes before death. Something can't die before it is alive, but you have to live before you can die. You could try to say the two occur at the same time but if that was completely true you'd be saying that nothing is alive or dead. Now that idea seems ok at first glance but then what could explain me being consciously aware, or anything existing?

[Hitta]

Ive never said they aren't all natural, just that one is more natural because it is more. The will to survive always wins out over the will to die in the long run. People commit suicide because they aren't thinking, people put dogs in a den of their own shit because they aren't thinking. Yeah they followed their impulses, but it was a lesser impulse.. the impulse took less information into consideration.

Since we don't know where we go when we die, even in the very worst circumstances it is still better to choose the long term option of struggling to survive; because it generalizes to the afterlife.

It is like a tribe of indians who kills the weak buffalo, doesn't kill the pregnant buffalo, and despite being hungry resists the urge to slaughter them all; the long term option is better and more favorable for all involved in every way. Now sure the indian could be idiotic and kill all the buffalo.

And then you could say 'well what if there was a fringe indian who wasn't getting his fair share of food'. Well why did the indians give birth to that unwanted indian in the first place? Why did our parents give birth to us?

I've seen parents who just have kids for their own comfort, not really caring about the kids awareness, and that's about the worst thing you can do. I agree it does create destructive impulses; the impulses started somewhere though. And if the fringe indian does manage to overcome his destructive impulses which he was born into, he is even stronger in the end since he is independent and will probably rise to the top as a leader.

That's kind of my point though, the smaller imbalances all rooted from the source. So why you may have a stable base int he center of society that says that something is wrong, it's not like those imbalances that break out aren't rooted into the basic insecurities of mankind. As a matter of fact, every person on the planet probably has something fringe about them and are outside the norm. It's like the sum and the parts are the same thing. Everything is a fractal of an original origin point even the imbalances. While you may have a collective norm, you may not have one person on the entire planet that entirely follows that collective norm. This is because our imbalances are apart of our identities.

[rat1]

Ok but the imbalances of this life are totally rounded away by the prospect of an infinite afterlife, which every person has to at least acknowledge. Just the fact we have to acknowledge it makes it true for us. You can't ignore the prospect of the infinite.

[Hitta]

Well that's what happens with religion and stuff like that. You have a bunch of people come together and project the quantity of their fear of death into an idea of infinite prospect. The thing though is, the fear of death itself is reformulated from person to person. It's like the fear in itself is defined by the root of who they are..... they don't want to lose themselves.... but that "self" is reconfigured from person to person so the fear has different momentary reasons(though the same in a way, as really people are just more complex formulations of the origin point). Complete balance and a proper way to conduct ourselves, is impossible to attain and maintain an identity as the environment is always changing; and why there is always a truth that we always attempt to attain as a society, that truth will always allude us as that search for perfect balance is what keeps us expanding.

If those imbalances were rounded out, society in itself would cease to exist. That's because those imbalances are the basic foundation for what society is.


You ever had an obsessive compulsive little game with numbers where you try to create a random pattern with a set of numbers. It can get frustrating, because the human mind always idealizes everything that it looks at. You start looking at this random pattern that you assigned, and its like the numbers are two close, I see order. Then you randomize them again, and you see some pattern with odd numbers, then even. Then you do it again and you see some pattern with increasing digits. 1 2 4 7 11 or something like that. The point of bring that up, is it's like there's no real random patterns in the scope of humanity. It finds meaning and substance in everything it looks at. There's no pure random order, because every person is constantly changing their ideals and their expectations. That's because humanity as a whole in itself sort of represents infinite potential.. and infinity is everything. Yet we only exist within transfinite frames of reference, because there is a portion always missing that defines the self and defines the species in general and when we always attempt to find some semblance of truth, we forget that perfect truth can't have form.

[Gilly]

also, if humanity hadn't existed in a state of severe imbalance for the past two thousand years, there would be no yearning for balance, and thus no symbolic network to entangle ourselves in as a means to ignore this dilemma. the simple fact is that from monarchies to the feudal system to democracy, the collective mind has accepted subservience; for some reason we all wake up every day and go to work for greedy parasites that relish every last drop of sweat we put out.. for a ******ly paycheck at a regular interval. the potential for enjoyment is predefined. it just so happens that the means to greater enjoyment almost always entail higher levels of deception.

This is a viewpoint I am willing to entertain. If humanity did not already experience innate dissatisfaction in our "natural" state, there would never have been any motive to change into what we have become. I think this restlessness, perfectionism, and an irresistible imperative for change certainly comprise the fulcrum for our current ingenuity; whether or not this was what motivated any original departure from a so-called natural method of living is debatable, but a valid objection to the notion that we might be better off living in trees.

I disagree that seeking pleasure necessitates deception, especially considering the gratification that can be had from well-defined implicit agreements between individuals and the intense utilization of these connections, but the underlying motive for seeking pleasure certainly pulls on the finely tuned strings of the human collective in its optimally efficient state.

[strrrng]

This is a viewpoint I am willing to entertain. If humanity did not already experience innate dissatisfaction in our "natural" state, there would never have been any motive to change into what we have become. I think this restlessness, perfectionism, and an irresistible imperative for change certainly comprise the fulcrum for our current ingenuity; whether or not this was what motivated any original departure from a so-called natural method of living is debatable, but a valid objection to the notion that we might be better off living in trees.

dissatisfaction is implicit in the 'natural' state, because there is a constant need to align the mental and physical aspects. I'm referring to how this balance is expressed, not suggesting that there is some simpler, natural way for us to go back to. a collective psyche's structure is altered by redirecting energy, not suppressing it, i.e. considering better uses for certain technology than doing away with it altogether. the same applies in social relations, which form the basic dialectic of the process.

I disagree that seeking pleasure necessitates deception, especially considering the gratification that can be had from well-defined implicit agreements between individuals and the intense utilization of these connections, but the underlying motive for seeking pleasure certainly pulls on the finely tuned strings of the human collective in its optimally efficient state.

I didn't say it inherently necessitates deception, just that as far as means and ends go, the latter has its sway in our society, insofar as a basic attitude is concerned ("enjoy!"). take the example about instinctive responses. the expression of these through symbols itself is the premise of distortion. it's not that the symbols can be used, but that their creators mistake a reflection for the substance.

[strrrng]

Ok but the imbalances of this life are totally rounded away by the prospect of an infinite afterlife, which every person has to at least acknowledge. Just the fact we have to acknowledge it makes it true for us. You can't ignore the prospect of the infinite.

the prospect of the infinite as a positive substance (i.e. god, heaven) belies itself.

[Gilly]

dissatisfaction is implicit in the 'natural' state, because there is a constant need to align the mental and physical aspects. I'm referring to how this balance is expressed, not suggesting that there is some simpler, natural way for us to go back to. a collective psyche's structure is altered by redirecting energy, not suppressing it, i.e. considering better uses for certain technology than doing away with it altogether. the same applies in social relations, which form the basic dialectic of the process.

Funny, the first thing that comes to mind is a post-apocalyptic landscape where houses are salvaged from road highway signs and people ghetto rig GPS units into treasure maps for the holy grail...



I didn't say it inherently necessitates deception, just that as far as means and ends go, the latter has its sway in our society, insofar as a basic attitude is concerned ("enjoy!").[/quote]

Lol...from now on, as my customers leave, I will make my last word "Enjoy!" Maybe it will scare enough of them.

take the example about instinctive responses. the expression of these through symbols itself is the premise of distortion. it's not that the symbols can be used, but that their creators mistake a reflection for the substance.

Funny thing is, this seems to be happening more and more as we advance further. Perhaps the most important thing IS that the products of our symbolic projection of desire can be used.

The apocalypse will probably be soon regardless

[Gilly]

the prospect of the infinite as a positive substance (i.e. god, heaven) belies itself.

Yeah, I really don't see why people feel the need to project it so much. Ultimately its for reassurance, I think. Stupid traumas.

[rat1]

the prospect of the infinite as a positive substance (i.e. god, heaven) belies itself.

When, where do I say it is a positive substance? It is only the largest, most infinite, most universal thing. Positive or negative don't even exist in that.

[strrrng]

Funny, the first thing that comes to mind is a post-apocalyptic landscape where houses are salvaged from road highway signs and people ghetto rig GPS units into treasure maps for the holy grail...

Lol...from now on, as my customers leave, I will make my last word "Enjoy!" Maybe it will scare enough of them.

lol it's probably more ingenuous to say it to the ones exiting

Funny thing is, this seems to be happening more and more as we advance further. Perhaps the most important thing IS that the products of our symbolic projection of desire can be used.

yeah but even usefulness only goes so far, when it concerns the purpose, method, etc. psychological proxies grow exponentially the further one gets into symbolic alignment.

The apocalypse will probably be soon regardless

well it's easy to forget how long it's been

[strrrng]

When, where do I say it is a positive substance?

here:

It is only the largest, most infinite, most universal thing.

Positive or negative don't even exist in that.

nor do before and after

[rat1]

Nothing about the largest, most infinite, most universal thing is positive or negative. How could everything that exists, put together, have a positive charge? Where would the negative charge be located, outside of everything that exists?