Existential Thoughts: Change My Mind

[EternalStudent]

How vain you are to think you know better than all the generations of ancestors that persevered through a life much harder than your's for you to exist.
Just read Plato or any other classic from 2000 years ago and you will know that we are no smarter today than they were back then.
IQ is genetic, so you are probably not smarter than your ancestors.
Whats more likely, that you have somehow discovered a new insight that they never noticed, or you are struggling with an issue that your ancestors persevered through for some reason that you don't yet know?
BTW doubt is a big part of being a Christian too. Just because some people use it as a blanket to cover difficult philosophical and moral questions doesn't mean there are not intelligent people who are Christians and have a consistent worldview. Otherwise, the same critique could be levelled at lazy atheists who say "nothing matters" rather than searching for truth (not saying you are in this camp as you are generally curious and not afraid to grapple with the issue.)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[AceVentures]

I took time to consider this, but I'm not sure what the point is. I'm not familiar with retardation in the way you've described it, so I'm not sure what benefit psychometric testing of this sort would offer. I do appreciate the offer, though.

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. The retardation is in relation to developmental malfunctions of the sensory-motor coordination.

Maladaptation of our neural development manifests itself in coordination of movement. Unfortunately none of us as adults are diagnosed or tested for this. So we ascribe what appear to be cognitive malfunctions to abstractions of the mind.

There are unique solutions to the improvement of cognitive function which abandon entirely the domain of thought, and practice in action. Organization of movement becomes the vehicle by which we study and address the cognitive piping.

We can even forget about the concept of retardation, it's only an abstraction I'm using to illustrate the concept of impairment in neural functioning.

As you think, as you sense and feel and move to Utah and start a new business or go for a hike or sit at a coffee shop - you simultaneously engage all of your extensor and flexor muscles to erect your body against gravity. In this coordination of intention into movement lay many unintentional, neurotic and cognitively taxing behaviors which we are oblivious to.

What's called the allostatic load, or the stress of your entire self, is actually measurable from the standpoint of efficiency in your movement patterns.

Becoming self-aware of maladaptations of our anti-gravity muscles and learning functional alternatives for self-organization unlock neural bandwidth and improve cognitive and perceptual functioning.

What might appear to be a difficult chapter of existential mental quarrel could be interlinked with a mild and undiagnosed scoliosis which has gotten worse and is affecting your ability to concentrate with your eyes, making you feel irritable and frustrated, your tasks becoming seemingly uninteresting, and worsening inability to do what you intend in the world.

The thought patterns associated with these states are inseparable from inefficient movement patterns which are inhibiting your action.

The offer was to demonstrate to you in your own action what an impaired movement coordination looks like and how a functionally integrated organization leads to an improvement in cognitive association.

Perhaps you don't have any sensory-motor maladaptation, and there's nothing I can help you with.

Or you learn new ways of using yourself which you'd never thought about before and in the process become aware of unnecessary strenuous patterns of your behavioral self-organization.

I know you're a PhD in psychology so I thought you would appreciate a new perspective to study human behavior.

The offer is still up.

 

[Simon Angel]

When I have such thoughts I turn to sex and adrenaline. I've been thinking about all of this my whole life so far and it's exhausting.

I think the answer, as cheesy as it sounds, is love. Like, the infatuating kind of love.

My best memories are from my childhood (even though it wasn't a great one, especially with divorced parents) and my first love. When that love was taken away, I nearly died.

So love and family are probably the answer. I know you're divorced and that must suck donkey balls. No matter what enjoyment and satisfaction you get from life, you're still a single parent.

I also disagree that you're not depressed, but I won't go into detail.

Anyway, I've got massive health anxiety and worry about death, too.

Will I live long enough? Did I let someone go when I shouldn't have?

Why have I never loved anyone as much as my first girlfriend, why was that so magical? Why do I still dream about her sometimes after so many years?

Am I destined to never be that happy again or did the breakup experience scar me?

I also have this weird fear that I do not appreciate/value the present as much as I should, as if I don't truly realize what I have until I lose it some day. Feelings of nostalgia and longing of the past tear me up like nothing else.

Will I live long enough to learnt the truth about extraterrestrial life? What about advanced past human civilisations?

Will I be able to transfer my consciousness to something like a hard drive and "live" as long as I decide to?

Everyone dies – from the most important people with the most interesting, dramatic, and meaningful lives... To those whose existence was, ultimately, futile and pointless.

The question is, will I get answers before I go? Do I even deserve answers or am I just a random human who was at the right place and time to see a UFO out of a freaking sci-fi movie?

And I haven't even scratched the surface.

Until then, I make an effort to imbue meaning in any way possible and take life day by day.

And now I'm going to get out of bed to work on my clients because all of this would be much worse without money.

What I wrote probably won't help you or be relatable. But this is my personal existential crisis which I wanted to share, even though it's different from yours, because it probably torments us all the same.

Oh, and helping others is great. We all have some existential angst going on (on top of everyday life) which can easily make us shortsighted and indifferent to other people's struggles in our community.

Helping the way you did was awesome and you were effectively a hero to that woman. God didn't save her (or did he?) but you and another mortal man did. That's power, and it was used for good.

 

[Fiscra]

At the risk of outing myself as a psycho...

This post is going to get kind of dark and difficult, but it highlights a core perspective in my life that I do not know how to change and am not sure needs to be changed. If you believe I should approach life or business differently than I have in the past, please add your perspective as it might make a difference. Maybe there's something I haven't considered.

My biggest obstacle in both business and life is that I don't know how to overcome my own reasoning. If I reason that the most likely outcomes in my future are A) Death or B) a world that changes inconceivably, then I also reason that joy/happiness/satisfaction etc., comes from the moment to moment experience. So if I do not enjoy what I am doing at the moment, I choose to change what I am doing because that is what I can control right now.

Not long ago, I reasoned that if death is the only option, then it doesn't matter if I die today or twenty years from now, so today is probably as good a day to die as any (besides, the world has become a bit insufferable). However, if there is even the slightest chance that I might overcome death, then all of my efforts should be put toward that end.

But, if overcoming death results in a different kind of perpetual hell due to the inevitable changes that will result over a long enough timeline, then death may still be the preferred option which brings me back to my original reasoning, except that if I might affect the changes that take place, and if in affecting said changes, I might exist for as long as I want not in a state of perpetual living hell, then that might be worth living for and working toward.

So here I am.

Caught between a rock and a hard place. Not sure if I should live even one more day, but curious enough to not call it quits yet. In the meantime, I'm left with the conclusion that doing whatever I want is the best choice in the moment because that remains the only factor I have any control over, and it remains the only instance of experience that I have at all. That said, doing whatever I want in the present moment *may* negatively affect my *future* moments of experience (let's avoid the issue of time for now).

Based on the above, I believe it would have been better if I had not existed at all so I wouldn't have to deal with any of this. But I never had a choice in that, so I conclude that as long as I'm not breaking laws that would negatively affect my experience, then doing what I want in the moment is still the most sensible conclusion.

As a result, I find myself regularly changing ideas and not making as much progress as others would like to see me make. I say "others" because when I ask myself if I am satisfied with my progress, the answer is either, "I am satisfied and should continue along this path" or "I am unsatisfied and should change this path." If it's the later, then I change directions.

These are difficult issues.

Many people turn to religion to avoid thinking about this stuff. I do not accept religion or deities as a valid solution for me, so I remain with, what many would describe as, a twisted worldview that holds me up in some areas, such as sticking with business ideas for years, while empowering me in other areas, such as in making quick decisions and taking decisive action.

Maybe this perspective makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. If I encounter a more reasonable perspective, then I would be open to changing my worldview, but so far that hasn't happened.

So if you have a different perspective that you think is more reasonable, please share it. The topic is open for discussion.

I like the idea that our life is like a game, we have a lot of possibilities for what to do.
If you look at the world through the eyes of a child and study it, learn it, and interact with it, life becomes more interesting.

At the same time, realizing that life is finite, this makes it meaningless.
However, if we assume that there is a continuation of life after death, but in a different form - spiritual, where there is no opportunity to breathe, smell, taste, see details, or feel, then life is filled with meaning in these small moments.

And if we die anyway, why not live this life as an experiment and experience, asking yourself every day the question, what else do I want to study, understand, try in this new day - my daily new life?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[amp0193]

Even if I were diagnosed with a disorder, I don't know what use it would be

Was just a thought.

I think it just sometimes helps to better understand yourself and why you do the things you do.

My wife has no intention of medicating anything either, but it's been helpful for both me and her to understand how she is, and how to work with that... and not to feel bad or guilty when you don't do things the way that they "should" be done.

I've learned a couple of years ago I have pretty strong Autistic/Asperger's behaviors. Knowing that doesn't change anything really. There's nothing I'm going to "do" about it. But I find it helpful to be able to attach a reason behind understanding why I am the way I am about some things.

Anyway, I discovered that, given the opportunity, I will choose to help. So, at least on some level, I do care about helping others. I was wrong about that before.

For sure you've helped a lot of people here and have taken lots of time to document your journeys. Definitely some of the better content here.

A decent chunk of what I know about copywriting came from those threads back in the day.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

It wouldn't let me send a pm so I'll just put it here.

I don't know why but Descartes keeps popping up and it makes me think of your mini existential crisis. I thought I'd send some book recommendations and a quote.

"A dominant model, as old as Plato but rebirthed by Descartes and cultivated throughout modernity, sees the human person as fundamentally a thinking thing. Recall Descartes’ basic project as outlined in Discourse on Method and his later Meditations. Racked with anxiety because his prior certainties have become shipwrecked on the shores of later doubt, Descartes finds himself in an existential crisis: If things that have seemed so certain to him can later be unveiled as false, then how can he be certain about anything? Trying to tackle this angst head-on, Descartes retreats to isolation in a room for several days, simply in order to think his way through the problem. (How different would the world be if Descartes could have just gotten a date?!) You probably know the rough-and-ready outline of the story: meditating on the conditions for knowledge, Descartes sets about to discover if anything can be known with certainty. After writing off the senses and the body as sources of deception and doubt, and even the realm of mathematical truths, Descartes despairs whether anything is certain. While I might think that 2 + 2 = 4 is a certain truth, it is at least possible that God is an evil demon, toying with me, and deceiving me into thinking that’s obviously true, when in fact it is not. Almost swallowed by this sea of raging doubt, Descartes catches a glimpse of hope—a sort of intellectual beacon that promises solid ground. For, he reasons, even if I’m being deceived about what seems most certain, it must be the case that, in order for me to be deceived, I must exist. And so, in the Meditations, Descartes’ famous maxim “I think, therefore I am” takes on an even starker form: “I’m deceived, therefore I am”—because even if I am being deceived, I would have to exist in order to be deceived. With this insight, Descartes’ battered vessel in search of certainty finally reaches a shore.[2]

So, with certainty, Descartes concludes that I am. But this raises the next question: What am I? Just what is the nature of this “I” that most certainly exists? Having cast aside the senses and the body already in his meditations, Descartes concludes that “I” am “a thinking thing.” In other words, what I am is an essentially immaterial mind or consciousness—occasionally and temporarily embodied, but not essentially.[3] This bequeaths to us a dominant and powerful picture of the human person as fundamentally a thinking thing—a cognitive machine defined, above all, by thought and rational operations."

<<<<some other paragraphs>>>

"It is just this adoption of a rationalist, cognitivist anthropology that accounts for the shape of so much Protestant worship as a heady affair fixated on “messages” that disseminate Christian ideas and abstract values (easily summarized on PowerPoint slides).[5] The result is a talking-head version of Christianity that is fixated on doctrines and ideas, even if it is also paradoxically allied with a certain kind of anti-intellecutalism. We could describe this as “bobble head” Christianity, so fixated on the cognitive that it assumes a picture of human beings that look like bobble heads: mammoth heads that dwarf an almost nonexistent body. In sum, because the church buys into a cognitivist anthropology, it adopts a stunted pedagogy that is fixated on the mind. So rather than calling into question this reductionistic picture of the human person, the church simply tries to feed different ideas through the same intellectual IV."

<<<<<half a chapter later>>>>>>

"In contrast, we need a nonreductionistic understanding of human persons as embodied agents of desire or love. This Augustinian model of human persons resists the rationalism and quasi-rationalism of the earlier models by shifting the center of gravity of human identity, as it were, down from the heady regions of mind closer to the central regions of our bodies, in particular, our kardia—our gut or heart. The point is to emphasize that the way we inhabit the world is not primarily as thinkers, or even believers, but as more affective, embodied creatures who make our way in the world more by feeling our way around it. Like the blind men pictured in Rembrandt’s sketches, for the most part we make our way in the world with hands outstretched, in an almost tactile groping with our bodies.[13] One might say that in our everyday, mundane being-in-the-world, we don’t lead with our head, so to speak; we lead out with our heart and hands."

~Desiring the Kingdom, James KA Smith
I think you should read/listen to:

The Chosen by Chaim Potok (novel)

The Aquinas Lectures by Peter Kreeft

The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis
Little known fact about CS Lewis, which you won't find in many Christian circles, is that as a young man he was quite playful and bold about his dominant sexual predilections, specifically spanking.

Till We Have Faces was the only novel he wrote with the help of his wife, who died from cancer soon after. I recommend that book too.

Since you have a high iq and you can't find any peace unless you're properly feeding your mind (business goals, language, books, etc) I'm assuming you've done precisely what James KA Smith discusses in Desiring the Kingdom. You've grown bigger in mind than in heart. In order to rectify the situation you'll need novels, relationships, nature, and art instead of information books, pragmatic transactions, cubicles and machines.

Hope something of that helps.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

It wouldn't let me send a pm so I'll just put it here.

I don't know why but Descartes keeps popping up and it makes me think of your mini existential crisis. I thought I'd send some book recommendations and a quote.

"A dominant model, as old as Plato but rebirthed by Descartes and cultivated throughout modernity, sees the human person as fundamentally a thinking thing. Recall Descartes’ basic project as outlined in Discourse on Method and his later Meditations. Racked with anxiety because his prior certainties have become shipwrecked on the shores of later doubt, Descartes finds himself in an existential crisis: If things that have seemed so certain to him can later be unveiled as false, then how can he be certain about anything? Trying to tackle this angst head-on, Descartes retreats to isolation in a room for several days, simply in order to think his way through the problem. (How different would the world be if Descartes could have just gotten a date?!) You probably know the rough-and-ready outline of the story: meditating on the conditions for knowledge, Descartes sets about to discover if anything can be known with certainty. After writing off the senses and the body as sources of deception and doubt, and even the realm of mathematical truths, Descartes despairs whether anything is certain. While I might think that 2 + 2 = 4 is a certain truth, it is at least possible that God is an evil demon, toying with me, and deceiving me into thinking that’s obviously true, when in fact it is not. Almost swallowed by this sea of raging doubt, Descartes catches a glimpse of hope—a sort of intellectual beacon that promises solid ground. For, he reasons, even if I’m being deceived about what seems most certain, it must be the case that, in order for me to be deceived, I must exist. And so, in the Meditations, Descartes’ famous maxim “I think, therefore I am” takes on an even starker form: “I’m deceived, therefore I am”—because even if I am being deceived, I would have to exist in order to be deceived. With this insight, Descartes’ battered vessel in search of certainty finally reaches a shore.[2]

So, with certainty, Descartes concludes that I am. But this raises the next question: What am I? Just what is the nature of this “I” that most certainly exists? Having cast aside the senses and the body already in his meditations, Descartes concludes that “I” am “a thinking thing.” In other words, what I am is an essentially immaterial mind or consciousness—occasionally and temporarily embodied, but not essentially.[3] This bequeaths to us a dominant and powerful picture of the human person as fundamentally a thinking thing—a cognitive machine defined, above all, by thought and rational operations."

<<<<some other paragraphs>>>

"It is just this adoption of a rationalist, cognitivist anthropology that accounts for the shape of so much Protestant worship as a heady affair fixated on “messages” that disseminate Christian ideas and abstract values (easily summarized on PowerPoint slides).[5] The result is a talking-head version of Christianity that is fixated on doctrines and ideas, even if it is also paradoxically allied with a certain kind of anti-intellecutalism. We could describe this as “bobble head” Christianity, so fixated on the cognitive that it assumes a picture of human beings that look like bobble heads: mammoth heads that dwarf an almost nonexistent body. In sum, because the church buys into a cognitivist anthropology, it adopts a stunted pedagogy that is fixated on the mind. So rather than calling into question this reductionistic picture of the human person, the church simply tries to feed different ideas through the same intellectual IV."

<<<<<half a chapter later>>>>>>

"In contrast, we need a nonreductionistic understanding of human persons as embodied agents of desire or love. This Augustinian model of human persons resists the rationalism and quasi-rationalism of the earlier models by shifting the center of gravity of human identity, as it were, down from the heady regions of mind closer to the central regions of our bodies, in particular, our kardia—our gut or heart. The point is to emphasize that the way we inhabit the world is not primarily as thinkers, or even believers, but as more affective, embodied creatures who make our way in the world more by feeling our way around it. Like the blind men pictured in Rembrandt’s sketches, for the most part we make our way in the world with hands outstretched, in an almost tactile groping with our bodies.[13] One might say that in our everyday, mundane being-in-the-world, we don’t lead with our head, so to speak; we lead out with our heart and hands."

~Desiring the Kingdom, James KA Smith
I think you should read/listen to:

The Chosen by Chaim Potok (novel)

The Aquinas Lectures by Peter Kreeft

The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis
Little known fact about CS Lewis, which you won't find in many Christian circles, is that as a young man he was quite playful and bold about his dominant sexual predilections, specifically spanking.

Till We Have Faces was the only novel he wrote with the help of his wife, who died from cancer soon after. I recommend that book too.

Since you have a high iq and you can't find any peace unless you're properly feeding your mind (business goals, language, books, etc) I'm assuming you've done precisely what James KA Smith discusses in Desiring the Kingdom. You've grown bigger in mind than in heart. In order to rectify the situation you'll need novels, relationships, nature, and art instead of information books, pragmatic transactions, cubicles and machines.

Hope something of that helps.

Amazing. You should write more about this. As someone who also struggles with being too “heady” and tries to be a better Christian this resonates strongly. Not a religious forum, but I have to say thank you.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[rdan]

At the risk of outing myself as a psycho...

This post is going to get kind of dark and difficult, but it highlights a core perspective in my life that I do not know how to change and am not sure needs to be changed. If you believe I should approach life or business differently than I have in the past, please add your perspective as it might make a difference. Maybe there's something I haven't considered.

My biggest obstacle in both business and life is that I don't know how to overcome my own reasoning. If I reason that the most likely outcomes in my future are A) Death or B) a world that changes inconceivably, then I also reason that joy/happiness/satisfaction etc., comes from the moment to moment experience. So if I do not enjoy what I am doing at the moment, I choose to change what I am doing because that is what I can control right now.

Not long ago, I reasoned that if death is the only option, then it doesn't matter if I die today or twenty years from now, so today is probably as good a day to die as any (besides, the world has become a bit insufferable). However, if there is even the slightest chance that I might overcome death, then all of my efforts should be put toward that end.

But, if overcoming death results in a different kind of perpetual hell due to the inevitable changes that will result over a long enough timeline, then death may still be the preferred option which brings me back to my original reasoning, except that if I might affect the changes that take place, and if in affecting said changes, I might exist for as long as I want not in a state of perpetual living hell, then that might be worth living for and working toward.

So here I am.

Caught between a rock and a hard place. Not sure if I should live even one more day, but curious enough to not call it quits yet. In the meantime, I'm left with the conclusion that doing whatever I want is the best choice in the moment because that remains the only factor I have any control over, and it remains the only instance of experience that I have at all. That said, doing whatever I want in the present moment *may* negatively affect my *future* moments of experience (let's avoid the issue of time for now).

Based on the above, I believe it would have been better if I had not existed at all so I wouldn't have to deal with any of this. But I never had a choice in that, so I conclude that as long as I'm not breaking laws that would negatively affect my experience, then doing what I want in the moment is still the most sensible conclusion.

As a result, I find myself regularly changing ideas and not making as much progress as others would like to see me make. I say "others" because when I ask myself if I am satisfied with my progress, the answer is either, "I am satisfied and should continue along this path" or "I am unsatisfied and should change this path." If it's the later, then I change directions.

These are difficult issues.

Many people turn to religion to avoid thinking about this stuff. I do not accept religion or deities as a valid solution for me, so I remain with, what many would describe as, a twisted worldview that holds me up in some areas, such as sticking with business ideas for years, while empowering me in other areas, such as in making quick decisions and taking decisive action.

Maybe this perspective makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. If I encounter a more reasonable perspective, then I would be open to changing my worldview, but so far that hasn't happened.

So if you have a different perspective that you think is more reasonable, please share it. The topic is open for discussion.

The reasoning makes absolute sense to me, thinking the same way. This is comparable with being able to let go of the past / future, i.e. not working towards something or as a result of something, but doing only what you desire to do.

While what I say is not professional advice and should never been seen as one, coming simply from my own experience, as soon as I fully accepted that it doesn’t matter if I die today or in 50 years (truly can’t care more), a shift of understanding happened. If it really doesn’t matter what happens to me, I can put my efforts towards improving somebody else’s life, at least giving them a good life.

Life inherently has no meaning, and makes no sense. This is, until you give it a meaning.

Your feelings in the present are strongly affected by your own perceptions. If it is exciting for you to build a business because it is fun to see something you built works, then that is what you do. Learning how to do taxes is boring, yet for a bigger meaning, i.e. business, it becomes fun.

Everything you learn and then change will still be in your mind and skillset, meaning even though you change the directions often, you still put one step further to your own self-development. For me, I play multiple (+14) instruments, have a sh-ton of skills, yet only a few mastered. From the experiences of learning each, I am able to connect everything in an unforseeable way.

I was very religious (being baptized with the age of 10, not since birth). Yet, an extreme depression, accompanied with sui***al thoughts since then, till to this day. But since I stopped believing in a god (and thus, “answering” the important questions that cannot be answered), I took actions in my own hands, literally doing whatever I want to do.
Supervisors, parents, no matter the position, lost their power to tell me anything. Either you work WITH me, or I am not interested = doing something else.

If I can’t be happy in my own life, I see absolutely no reason to continue at all. This is where the perception comes back into play.
What is that what is exciting to you?
Which dreams / visions stuck with you, even though you repeated it, while still maintaining genuine interest?

And I also can say, there has been no-one being able to change this perspective. Yet, from all the stories I’ve heard, I have noticed, they had their own weird view on life. This is mine, and I have learned to accept, work and nourish it. Now I see this as the only way to fully become yourself, without any outside influence.

I am able to learn in a completely different way than most, I can acquire anything in record time, and most importantly, because I don’t do what I don’t want to do, 100% of my effort goes into what I am interested in.

If I am assuming too much and this does not sound like you, I apologize.

My saying is;
„Wenn mich etwas interessiert, dann weiß ich alles darüber. Und wenn nicht, gebe ich mein Bestes dass es so ist.“
In english;
“If something interests me, then I know everything about it. And if I don't know everything, then I’ll do my best to make this true.”


But either way, thank you for sharing! This takes a ton of courageous self-reflection to admit that!

 

[NervesOfSteel]

How vain you are to think you know better than all the generations of ancestors that persevered through a life much harder than your's for you to exist.
Just read Plato or any other classic from 2000 years ago and you will know that we are no smarter today than they were back then.
IQ is genetic, so you are probably not smarter than your ancestors.
Whats more likely, that you have somehow discovered a new insight that they never noticed, or you are struggling with an issue that your ancestors persevered through for some reason that you don't yet know?
BTW doubt is a big part of being a Christian too. Just because some people use it as a blanket to cover difficult philosophical and moral questions doesn't mean there are not intelligent people who are Christians and have a consistent worldview. Otherwise, the same critique could be levelled at lazy atheists who say "nothing matters" rather than searching for truth (not saying you are in this camp as you are generally curious and not afraid to grapple with the issue.)

I Wish there was an intellectual discussion/argument thread about such topics! Such issues, though forming the basic hindrance due to mindset, are often neglected !

 

[EternalStudent]

I Wish there was an intellectual discussion/argument thread about such topics! Such issues, though forming the basic hindrance due to mindset, are often neglected !

There are people whose full time job it is to think about these things. All we would do in a thread like that would be quote the experts

After thinking more about Lex's problem, one solution might be to "choose" an axiom he agrees with somewhat that starts at the end, i.e what would be self-evident to a person that perseveres confidently into the future. The brain has a way of justifying anything we need justified, and may reveal a deductive/inductive path that he finds acceptable.

For example, the axiom might be "its important to leave money for my kids". Most people agree with that intuitively. Rather than trying to justify it consciously, try to accept that it is true on face value and then stop thinking about it. Your subconscious will continue to work on it and either integrate it or reject it.
Good luck Lex.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Lex DeVille]

My great uncle died this morning. I have a few distinct memories of him:

1) Childhood memories of seeing him at church and at Christmas time. He was always smiling and cracking jokes.

2) He got me a better job to replace my first job when my first job was central to a lot of my teenage problems (i.e. drinking, drugs, etc.). I quit that job and went back to the first job after just a few days.

3) He was there at my first wedding.

4) When I started my first business and built my first major Lego mosaic, he built a wood backing to hold it together in his woodshop and charged me nothing.

4) A short time later, he and my dad were moving chairs at the Church and wanted my help. I said no because I wanted to hang out with my girlfriend. Later that night I got in a fight with my parents and got kicked out with no place to go.

5). The last time I talked to him was at my grandfather's funeral. I had a new name and a new wife and he looked at me differently from before. He shook my hand, but I could see in his eyes that he wanted nothing to do with me.

My uncle was a good man. He served in the military, built a successful local insurance business, was a Deacon in the church, was a father and a husband, was well-liked and well-known in the community, owned a big house and land.

Now it's nothing.

By tomorrow the funeral home will publish his obituary and his story ends.

A life summarized into a paragraph, tucked away into the archives of history's library.

Existence is bullshit.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Oh dude, you're just a ball of pain wrapped in a hedgehog tied to balloons. Oof.

Sorry for your loss.

 

[Simon Angel]

My great uncle died this morning. I have a few distinct memories of him:

1) Childhood memories of seeing him at church and at Christmas time. He was always smiling and cracking jokes.

2) He got me a better job to replace my first job when my first job was central to a lot of my teenage problems (i.e. drinking, drugs, etc.). I quit that job and went back to the first job after just a few days.

3) He was there at my first wedding.

4) When I started my first business and built my first major Lego mosaic, he built a wood backing to hold it together in his woodshop and charged me nothing.

4) A short time later, he and my dad were moving chairs at the Church and wanted my help. I said no because I wanted to hang out with my girlfriend. Later that night I got in a fight with my parents and got kicked out with no place to go.

5). The last time I talked to him was at my grandfather's funeral. I had a new name and a new wife and he looked at me differently from before. He shook my hand, but I could see in his eyes that he wanted nothing to do with me.

My uncle was a good man. He served in the military, built a successful local insurance business, was a Deacon in the church, was a father and a husband, was well-liked and well-known in the community, owned a big house and land.

Now it's nothing.

By tomorrow the funeral home will publish his obituary and his story ends.

A life summarized into a paragraph, tucked away into the archives of history's library.

Existence is bullshit.

It sounds like he had a good time while he was here. Did some stuff, built a family.

Yeah, now it's over, but if that man spent all his life as a centered, grounded individual rather than pondering death all the time, he won.

I feel like we were born in the most interesting period in human history. We don't know if we're headed towards the next level of civilization or destruction.

For example, we have access to an incredible amount of history and the technology to turn that into a movie that allows us to experience it. Just 100 years ago we didn't, let alone the 300,000-400,000 years we'd been roaming around the woods butt naked.. or did we?

We're basically in the dark about human history from before 10,000 BC. Who knows if (and how many) advanced civilizations before us had existed and thrived on Earth. How many stories we're missing out on...

Anyhow, I think the way we immortalize ourselves is by having kids. Hundreds of thousands of years worth DNA, genetic memory, and experience passed down onto the next human.

Oh, and one last thing:

View: https://youtu.be/eT4paA0jd2w?si=h8AXxhG7xhZaUHKF

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JUAREZ]

Sorry for your loss, Lex.

Now it's nothing

It's not nothing. Just because his phisical form is gone, it doesn't mean it's nothing.

Everything is energy.

What happens when a bulb burns? The energy is still there, so maybe it is the same when we leave this phisical form.

It's not gone. It's in your mind, your heart, in other people thoughts. Everytime you remember him, you feel something.

You are a dad. Can you look at your daughter when she explores with so much optimism this life , looking for experiences that make her feel all kinds of emotions, and tell her that existence is bullshit?

Everyone has a purpose. Everything near us was created with a purpose. Maybe you forgot yours.

When I feel down, I always look at my little kids. They seem to have the answers, they know how to be happy and they always look at experiences that make them feel good.

 

[Lex DeVille]

Anyhow, I think the way we immortalize ourselves is by having kids. Hundreds of thousands of years worth DNA, genetic memory, and experience passed down onto the next human.

Perhaps. It seems like our physical form's best attempt at immortality. Offspring, in the form of our creations, be it children, structures, businesses, ideas, etc. These things have always continued without fail to date.

Sorry for your loss, Lex.


It's not nothing. Just because his phisical form is gone, it doesn't mean it's nothing.

Everything is energy.

What happens when a bulb burns? The energy is still there, so maybe it is the same when we leave this phisical form.

It's not gone. It's in your mind, your heart, in other people thoughts. Everytime you remember him, you feel something.

You are a dad. Can you look at your daughter when she explores with so much optimism this life , looking for experiences that make her feel all kinds of emotions, and tell her that existence is bullshit?

Everyone has a purpose. Everything near us was created with a purpose. Maybe you forgot yours.

When I feel down, I always look at my little kids. They seem to have the answers, they know how to be happy and they always look at experiences that make them feel good.

When a light bulb stops working, something is broken in the lightbulb. If that something (i.e. the filament) is replaced/repaired, the lightbulb will work again. This analogy supports my following point.

If death is inevitable, then existence is bullshit - it is nothing more than 70 - 90 years of fooling ourselves about what we are doing here and the purpose it fulfills. Ultimately, we are nothing, our individual lives are nothing, and it makes no difference whether we die today or tomorrow.

If death is not inevitable, then the purpose for existence is to strive for continued existence, both as an individual and as a species.

Everything about life is focused on this outcome, from the gag reflex to looking for cars before crossing the street, to the entire medical profession, to AI technologists.

Every child we create, every idea we share, every building and statue we build, and even our religions are all for this purpose of continuing existence as far as it can go, or even indefinitely (which is the core appeal of most religions).

Humans explore and expand to survive. Humans kill to survive. Humans will do anything to continue their existence in whatever form, be it individual or as a species for as long as possible.

But when it comes to the inevitability of death - the end of conscious existence for the individual, humans put on blinders, ignoring the fact that literally everything they do every day all day long for 70 - 90 years is work toward surviving another year, another day, another instance.

The inevitability of death is a script.

Not only is it a script, it is the most terrible script.

The most dangerous lie is the one everyone believes is true without question.

The inevitability of death can only be disproven.

So I haven't forgotten my purpose, it isn't lost.

I fear change, and I know that change is coming, and that leads me to consider the ways change might affect my experiences of existence going forward.

Nonetheless, I still find that it is better to continue this experience of existence for as long as possible rather than as some other form of energy or whatever which may or may not have any experiences at all.

My purpose is still survival.

So whatever I do going forward (if I seek to feel fulfilled) should probably be aligned with that same objective.

 

[Robdavis]

If death is inevitable, then existence is bullshit - it is nothing more than 70 - 90 years of fooling ourselves about what we are doing here and the purpose it fulfills. Ultimately, we are nothing, our individual lives are nothing, and it makes no difference whether we die today or tomorrow.

Hi Lex,
I'd love to be able to give you an answer here that clears this all up.

But I can't.

So, all I'm going to say is, that I don't understand the paragraph above.

It seems to me, that for the paragraph above to be even close to true, then someone would have to be an isolated individual cut off from the rest of existence. (Maybe floating on their own in deep space.) So that they were only living for themselves and that when they died no-one else would notice because there would be no-one around.

If you assume that someone is part of something bigger - it could be anything bigger (a family, a society, a fraternity, a civilisation, a species, a universe etc), then someone could be born, make that bigger thing better in someway, therefore leading a purposeful life to some extent and die; and that would be fine. Your statement "If death is inevitable, then existence is bullshit" would be false.

So, for example, imagine that I have a burst pipe in my house and I can't fix it. So I call a plumber. The plumber comes, fixes the pipe and then leaves. I don't require the plumber to move in permanently to make a positive impact on my life. They just fix the pipe and go.

If you could try on the idea that your life isn't about you, in the same way that my life isn't about me, then maybe this would give you a different perspective.

Whether you would like this perspective or not, is likely up to you.

Someone might ask "well, why have a survival instinct?" if it's not about them. That they want to buy time to make a difference before they go, would be my answer.

As an aside, if you purpose is to explore human longevity, then this is transcendent to what I have written above. You could still explore human longevity in order to help other people to live longer so that they can fulfil their purposes before they die as well.

If this is your purpose, then you will be familiar with www.longecity.org if not, then you are now.

TL;DR You don't go to a movie to watch the end credits. Death is just a distraction, it's the living that's important.

EDIT: I'm not sure why the autocorrect has turned my use of the word perspective into a hyperlink. The destination URL doesn't seem to be relevant to my post.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[rdan]

I'm sorry to hear about your uncle's passing. It's never easy to lose a loved one, especially someone who had so much influence on your own life. My deepest condolences.

I fear change, and I know that change is coming, and that leads me to consider the ways change might affect my experiences of existence going forward.

You have gotten through so much already, from what you were able to put in a one-pager on this thread at least.

You had all reasons to be resentful, yet managed to stay motivated to push forward!

 

[Lex DeVille]

It seems to me, that for the paragraph above to be even close to true, then someone would have to be an isolated individual cut off from the rest of existence. (Maybe floating on their own in deep space.) So that they were only living for themselves and that when they died no-one else would notice because there would be no-one around.

That's likely because we are describing purpose differently. The purpose you're describing is subjective, and is framed within the context of a reality in which death is inevitable.

If you assume that someone is part of something bigger - it could be anything bigger (a family, a society, a fraternity, a civilisation, a species, a universe etc), then someone could be born, make that bigger thing better in someway, therefore leading a purposeful life to some extent and die; and that would be fine. Your statement "If death is inevitable, then existence in bullshit" would be false.

This supports what I said, which is that the purpose of existence is to survive. Humans are born and humans die currently, and in between those two points, virtually everything humans do is to continue to exist.

If humans had an option not to die, especially given a context where they continue to exist in a healthy body (or other non-deteriorated form) then the standard would likely shift with most people choosing not to die rather than to die at any given moment, even at what is currently considered the "later years." An 80 year old in a body that functions like a 25 year old will not choose to die today when they can live until tomorrow.

Take anyone of sound mind and body who lives right now. Point out that they will likely survive until tomorrow. Then ask them, "Given that you will likely survive until tomorrow, will you choose to die now?" They don't have to respond. Their choice of continued existence responds for them.

So in this instance, the purpose you are describing is still the purpose of survival.

The "and that would be fine" part is the scripted part. It's what we're all taught from the time we're born, because in calling it "fine" we find acceptance and comfort, rather than a life of struggle in the search for a means to defeat death (which has not been achieved by anyone so far as we know).

This is also the primary role of religion - comfort and acceptance through offering a means of indefinite survival. Most religions proclaim an idea of survival of the conscious and/or physical in the form of an immortal spirit or soul.

So, for example, imagine that I have a burst pipe in my house and I can't fix it. So I call a plumber. The plumber comes, fixes the pipe and then leaves. I don't require the plumber to move in permanently to make a positive impact on my life. They just fix the pipe and go.

The objective purpose of the plumber was not to make a positive impact on your life. The plumber's objective purpose was to fix the pipe, get paid, and use that money to buy food, water, shelter, and resources that allow him,and perhaps his family, to survive.

Your purpose in calling the plumber is to resolve an inconvenience so you can return to your normal pursuit of ensuring your survival (and in doing so, continuing to fulfill your objective purpose).

If you could try on the idea that your life isn't about you, in the same way that my life isn't about me, then maybe this would give you a different perspective.

Whether you would like this perspective or not, is likely up to you.

Someone might ask "well, why have a survival instinct?" if it's not about them. That they want to buy time to make a difference before they go, would be my answer.

If I die, then the reality I experience ceases to exist for me. All people in that experience of reality then also cease to exist. This is likely why human purpose is what it is.

If we do not strive to survive, then reality collapses and is no more. It becomes nothing for the experiencer (unless one of the human religions happens to be correct).

If you will die, and the person you make a difference for will die, then no difference is made because the "difference" you're describing is only a fleeting emotional experience, and a comfort response. I did X, therefore I did my part, fulfilled my 'purpose,' and can feel comfortable now with not doing more.

This describes subjective purpose where the individual finds meaning in doing some *thing.*

Subjective purpose is created by the individual. It is an emotional experience for the individual. I would also note that it is a self-indulgent experience. Nobody cares if you feel fulfilled or not, because they are in the process of finding their own fulfillment so that they can also find comfort and acceptance about the supposed inevitability of death.

Objective purpose is observable within systems both living and non. Objective purpose is inherent in all of existence (as far as I am aware). Everything within this reality functions to continue its existence for as long as it can.

Whether or not everything is "created" by some God figure is unknown, but regardless, what exists, continues to exist for as long as it can continue to exist. Conscious entities, such as humans have the added element of wanting to exist in preferred physical and mental states, and the option to take action toward that purpose.

Regardless, our innate function is to continue to exist for as long as possible.

As such, if death is inevitable, then existence is bullshit, because our objective purpose would be as fleeting as any subjective purpose and could never be fulfilled. Our purpose of striving for continued existence would actually have been purposeless from the start.

If death is not inevitable, then objective purpose is the primary purpose, and the most sensible subjective purpose one can likely find is to work toward achieving the objective purpose indefinitely.

If objective purpose is achieved indefinitely, then tending to other subjective purposes such as making a difference in people's lives would make sense to take over as the primary subjective purpose at that point.

 

[Robdavis]

Objective purpose is observable within systems both living and non. Objective purpose is inherent in all of existence (as far as I am aware). Everything within this reality functions to continue its existence for as long as it can.

Hi Lex,
Thanks for the reply. It is very interesting.

I think that your issue lies in the statement above. Most things in life have an objective purpose other than survival. They are only trying to survive in order to fulfil that objective purpose for as long as possible.

Take a simple example of a "non - living system" - a hammer. The objective purpose of a hammer is to hit nails. Not survive. The hammer needs to survive to be able to hit nails, but it doesn't hit nails to survive. Think about it, who would design a hammer to primarily survive? It would be designed to primarily to hit nails. You might argue that if it broke as soon as it was used then it would be useless and so it must be robust, but that necessity of survival only serves the higher objective purpose. Likewise who would buy a hammer that was primarily good as surviving, but not so good at hitting nails?

What about any product that is disposable? A disposable cup for example? You might have coffee in a disposable cup from a Starbucks or something like that. Is the purpose of the disposable cup really to survive? No. The cup's purpose is to hold your coffee. It's ability to survive until you have finished drinking your coffee is subservient to this higher purpose, not the other way around.

A slightly more complex example might be an artist, who can't make a living from their art and so they get a job so that they can survive and continue to produce their art. Their art is their objective purpose. And this art, if it was to be placed in a museum or some collection, could continue to interact with different people into the future.

Hope this helps.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[rblitz]

I haven't read the full thread so I'm only referring to your original post, Lex.

Disclaimer: I'm thinking about a similar thing about for years. Unfortunately, I've not came to an answer that I'm satisfied with so I'm changing directions every now and then.

With that in mind I think it basically comes down to seeing your own existence as either black or white. You either die eventually and so you can die today because what does it matter to live for a few more decades if we're dead forever someday? Or you don't die and so (in your own words) you should do everything to work to that end.

It seems that you value everything you do based on whether you die or not. And because there's nothing in between everything seems kind of pointless because you can't be sure whether live has an ending or not.
You're cycling between emotions and choices according to your current view of existence which will eventually lead to "not reaching the goals you're after."

You talked about having control over situations that affect your future living (and value your actions on the fact I mentioned above).

Let's imagine time and aging on a graph. Time is on the x axis from left to right. You can't change time (at least not travel back in time) so the values on the x axis (time) increment no matter what you do.
On the y axis are your choices and actions. The y axis moves in both directions (positive and negative values). At any moment in time you can either move up or down or stand still (don't change the y-value).

So eventually it all boils down to the actions we take. These are the only things that have influence (in whatever sort) on our lives.

It doesn't matter whether life has an ending or not. The values on the x-axis move on even if we're dead. You either take actions (y-axis) or not. If you're dead your graph simply cease to exist. Or it changes color or so because some actions you did may live on.

It seems we all don't have influence over the concept of death or eternal living. So it seems to be quite illogical to value our actions based upon the question if we die or not...

... because "per definition" our actions never influence the grand scheme of our existence.

Don't know if anyone can take anything from my post. It's quite an abstract topic and it's hard for me to put everything into words--not to speak of the fact that I'm myself struggling with the answers to such deep questions and believes.

 

[David Harrison]

At the risk of outing myself as a psycho...

This post is going to get kind of dark and difficult, but it highlights a core perspective in my life that I do not know how to change and am not sure needs to be changed. If you believe I should approach life or business differently than I have in the past, please add your perspective as it might make a difference. Maybe there's something I haven't considered.

My biggest obstacle in both business and life is that I don't know how to overcome my own reasoning. If I reason that the most likely outcomes in my future are A) Death or B) a world that changes inconceivably, then I also reason that joy/happiness/satisfaction etc., comes from the moment to moment experience. So if I do not enjoy what I am doing at the moment, I choose to change what I am doing because that is what I can control right now.

Not long ago, I reasoned that if death is the only option, then it doesn't matter if I die today or twenty years from now, so today is probably as good a day to die as any (besides, the world has become a bit insufferable). However, if there is even the slightest chance that I might overcome death, then all of my efforts should be put toward that end.

But, if overcoming death results in a different kind of perpetual hell due to the inevitable changes that will result over a long enough timeline, then death may still be the preferred option which brings me back to my original reasoning, except that if I might affect the changes that take place, and if in affecting said changes, I might exist for as long as I want not in a state of perpetual living hell, then that might be worth living for and working toward.

So here I am.

Caught between a rock and a hard place. Not sure if I should live even one more day, but curious enough to not call it quits yet. In the meantime, I'm left with the conclusion that doing whatever I want is the best choice in the moment because that remains the only factor I have any control over, and it remains the only instance of experience that I have at all. That said, doing whatever I want in the present moment *may* negatively affect my *future* moments of experience (let's avoid the issue of time for now).

Based on the above, I believe it would have been better if I had not existed at all so I wouldn't have to deal with any of this. But I never had a choice in that, so I conclude that as long as I'm not breaking laws that would negatively affect my experience, then doing what I want in the moment is still the most sensible conclusion.

As a result, I find myself regularly changing ideas and not making as much progress as others would like to see me make. I say "others" because when I ask myself if I am satisfied with my progress, the answer is either, "I am satisfied and should continue along this path" or "I am unsatisfied and should change this path." If it's the later, then I change directions.

These are difficult issues.

Many people turn to religion to avoid thinking about this stuff. I do not accept religion or deities as a valid solution for me, so I remain with, what many would describe as, a twisted worldview that holds me up in some areas, such as sticking with business ideas for years, while empowering me in other areas, such as in making quick decisions and taking decisive action.

Maybe this perspective makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. If I encounter a more reasonable perspective, then I would be open to changing my worldview, but so far that hasn't happened.

So if you have a different perspective that you think is more reasonable, please share it. The topic is open for discussion.

Hey Lex!

Your perspective rings home and makes tons of sense.
(to me)

Thing is...

Being aware of how the left hemisphere of our brain can cause confusion and division (the reasoning part)

It's no surprise why so many can't calmly share perspectives without boiling over.

I remember a guy explaining to me (years ago) how our language was created to standardize perspectives.
A whole encyclopedia of "meaning" for us to consume - only to regurgitate when the "right" button was pressed.

Anyway…

The main "reason" for posting is to share a talk I heard about ten years ago. It might add some different colors to your perspective toolbox.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

 

[Lex DeVille]

I think that your issue lies in the statement above. Most things in life have an objective purpose other than survival. They are only trying to survive in order to fulfil that objective purpose for as long as possible.

Take a simple example of a "non - living system" - a hammer. The objective purpose of a hammer is to hit nails. Not survive. The hammer needs to survive to be able to hit nails, but it doesn't hit nails to survive. Think about it, who would design a hammer to primarily survive? It would be designed to primarily to hit nails. You might argue that if it broke as soon as it was used then it would be useless and so it must be robust, but that necessity of survival only serves the higher objective purpose. Likewise who would buy a hammer that was primarily good as surviving, but not so good at hitting nails?

What about any product that is disposable? A disposable cup for example? You might have coffee in a disposable cup from a Starbucks or something like that. Is the purpose of the disposable cup really to survive? No. The cup's purpose is to hold your coffee. It's ability to survive until you have finished drinking your coffee is subservient to this higher purpose, not the other way around.

A slightly more complex example might be an artist, who can't make a living from their art and so they get a job so that they can survive and continue to produce their art. Their art is their objective purpose. And this art, if it was to be placed in a museum or some collection, could continue to interact with different people into the future.

Hope this helps.

I categorize the hammer (and your other example) as subjective purpose, because the action of hammering is not required for the hammer to *be.* A hammer that never hammers is still a hammer regardless of the purpose humans subjectively apply to it (it is also a back scratcher to a cat, even if a cat never scratches its back with it).

Objective purpose is the role the hammer fulfills beyond its defined purpose. If you take away the defined purpose, the hammer still fulfills this purpose.

If you take away the human, a hammer is still a hammer (assuming we use the human definition of the object). The hammer continues to *be* a hammer until it does not. If the hammer's handle decays and splits in two, the object is no longer a hammer. It is now a "broken hammer" until it is not.

A hammer that exists will continue to exist until it does not. So its objective purpose is to exist, and it does not have to try to do this. It just does this until it does not. This applies to everything, and it applies in almost the same way to everything, with one known exception, humans.

A hammer exists until it does not. A human exists until it does not. The objective purpose is to continue to exist until existence ceases. All things fulfill this purpose until they do not, but only one known thing, humans, has a choice to attempt to continue to fulfill the objective purpose beyond the point at which they otherwise would have stopped fulfilling said purpose.

Survival is the act of continuing to exist, so survival is the singular objective purpose. Therefore, the highest realization of this objective purpose is indefinite survival.

Sure, but that's the script though. God, aliens, the Universe, or whoever the F*ck created us basically went "Here's a limited lifespan and survival instinct lolz". One could argue the people who live fast and die young are the real unscripted homo sapiens since they quite literally reject self-preservation.

@Simon Angel I'm replying here so I don't get my other thread off track.

People who live fast and die young still fulfill the objective purpose of continuing to exist until they do not.

For humans, survival is both the objective purpose and (one of many) subjective purposes. It is subjective in the sense that humans generally do what they can to survive as long as possible, and it is also thought that they should do this (as indicated by the many people who try to coax a suicidal individual out of taking such action). And it is objective because, even if a human chooses to end their self, they have still fulfilled the objective purpose up to that point.

The characteristics of all things function to continue existence in a certain state until it does not. An ice cube continues to exist as an ice cube until such a time that it melts and becomes water. Water continues to exist as water until its state changes to a gas.

My point is that all things function as they do in order to continue to exist indefinitely in a state until they do not. Humans having a survival instinct is part of those functional characteristics.

Now, to bring it all around to why the core purpose humans should seek to fulfill is to achieve indefinite existence in the phenomenal realm.

Humans want to fulfill their objective purpose. Every fiber of their being does this. Humans exist with conscious awareness that they will exist until they do not (death), and in this terrible awareness, humans searched for, and continue to search for a means to exist indefinitely.

The best attempt at indefinite existence currently exists as an idea. It is the idea of an afterlife. The idea of an eternal soul. An idea found in human theology and religion. The idea that the end of the present state of existence is not actually the end of existence because an eternal existence awaits on the other side.

Humans are already striving toward the highest realization of the objective purpose.

What I am proposing is that humans should strive toward this highest realization in the phenomenal realm (the sensory realm), as it is the only realm in which we have any experience and any sense of empirical validity.

Beyond the phenomenal realm, we can only guess about what *is* and if we are wrong, then we have failed to fulfill the highest realization of the objective purpose and we cease to exist.

In the phenomenal realm, even if we seek to extend existence indefinitely, we may still ultimately fail, but at least in this realm, we might take comfort in knowing that the possibility of knowing if we can succeed exists.


Side thought...
It's really cool to be able to work through these thoughts and have others share theirs in this community. If discussions in my college classes were like this, it would be a radically different and truly amazing experience. This forum and the awesome people in it are a thousand times better than college for actual intellectual discussions.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Simon Angel]

I categorize the hammer (and your other example) as subjective purpose, because the action of hammering is not required for the hammer to *be.* A hammer that never hammers is still a hammer regardless of the purpose humans subjectively apply to it (it is also a back scratcher to a cat, even if a cat never scratches its back with it).

Objective purpose is the role the hammer fulfills beyond its defined purpose. If you take away the defined purpose, the hammer still fulfills this purpose.

If you take away the human, a hammer is still a hammer (assuming we use the human definition of the object). The hammer continues to *be* a hammer until it does not. If the hammer's handle decays and splits in two, the object is no longer a hammer. It is now a "broken hammer" until it is not.

A hammer that exists will continue to exist until it does not. So its objective purpose is to exist, and it does not have to try to do this. It just does this until it does not. This applies to everything, and it applies in almost the same way to everything, with one known exception, humans.

A hammer exists until it does not. A human exists until it does not. The objective purpose is to continue to exist until existence ceases. All things fulfill this purpose until they do not, but only one known thing, humans, has a choice to attempt to continue to fulfill the objective purpose beyond the point at which they otherwise would have stopped fulfilling said purpose.

Survival is the act of continuing to exist, so survival is the singular objective purpose. Therefore, the highest realization of this objective purpose is indefinite survival.


@Simon Angel I'm replying here so I don't get my other thread off track.

People who live fast and die young still fulfill the objective purpose of continuing to exist until they do not.

For humans, survival is both the objective purpose and (one of many) subjective purposes. It is subjective in the sense that humans generally do what they can to survive as long as possible, and it is also thought that they should do this (as indicated by the many people who try to coax a suicidal individual out of taking such action). And it is objective because, even if a human chooses to end their self, they have still fulfilled the objective purpose up to that point.

The characteristics of all things function to continue existence in a certain state until it does not. An ice cube continues to exist as an ice cube until such a time that it melts and becomes water. Water continues to exist as water until its state changes to a gas.

My point is that all things function as they do in order to continue to exist indefinitely in a state until they do not. Humans having a survival instinct is part of those functional characteristics.

Now, to bring it all around to why the core purpose humans should seek to fulfill is to achieve indefinite existence in the phenomenal realm.

Humans want to fulfill their objective purpose. Every fiber of their being does this. Humans exist with conscious awareness that they will exist until they do not (death), and in this terrible awareness, humans searched for, and continue to search for a means to exist indefinitely.

The best attempt at indefinite existence currently exists as an idea. It is the idea of an afterlife. The idea of an eternal soul. An idea found in human theology and religion. The idea that the end of the present state of existence is not actually the end of existence because an eternal existence awaits on the other side.

Humans are already striving toward the highest realization of the objective purpose.

What I am proposing is that humans should strive toward this highest realization in the phenomenal realm (the sensory realm), as it is the only realm in which we have any experience and any sense of empirical validity.

Beyond the phenomenal realm, we can only guess about what *is* and if we are wrong, then we have failed to fulfill the highest realization of the objective purpose and we cease to exist.

In the phenomenal realm, even if we seek to extend existence indefinitely, we may still ultimately fail, but at least in this realm, we might take comfort in knowing that the possibility of knowing if we can succeed exists.


Side thought...
It's really cool to be able to work through these thoughts and have others share theirs in this community. If discussions in my college classes were like this, it would be a radically different and truly amazing experience. This forum and the awesome people in it are a thousand times better than college for actual intellectual discussions.

What if it turns out the religious folk are right and there actually is an afterlife.. and that the way of achieving it is by irrational belief? What if that's the ultimate test for people who trust science – believe in something that we don't have (and might never have) empirical evidence it even exists?

Like invoking some metaphysical shit we can't yet explain (or know about) but it works in practice.

Then again, since science is essentially the code behind the program that is life/reality, perhaps it really is the ultimate answer to everything.

 

[Lex DeVille]

What if it turns out the religious folk are right and there actually is an afterlife.. and that the way of achieving it is by irrational belief? What if that's the ultimate test for people who trust science – believe in something that we don't have (and might never have) empirical evidence it even exists?

Like invoking some metaphysical shit we can't yet explain (or know about) but it works in practice.

Then again, since science is essentially the code behind the program that is life/reality, perhaps it really is the ultimate answer to everything.

There are so many concepts of afterlife that we are unlikely to believe in the correct version even if we choose to believe. If the Christian version is correct, then an afterlife is all but guaranteed regardless of lifespan.

So if one's soul is likely to wind up in Hell or to receive annihilation (being blipped from existence), it is still preferable to pursue indefinite existence in the physical world. If the soul is likely to see Heaven, then more time in the phenomenal simply presents more opportunities to serve God while alive.

Soren Kierkegaard had thoughts on God that fit well within the Christian framework.

The first of the 10 Commandments is to have no other gods before God. Kierkegaard reasoned that the man who worships a false God (an idol) believing that it is the real God, has actually worshipped *God,* while the Christian who superficially worships God has worshipped a false idol.

"God" in this case might be defined as that which man loves and pursues above all else. So in loving life and pursuing indefinite existence, existence is God, and even if that might be viewed as worshipping a false God by others, man would actually be worshipping the true God.

Lastly, if we assume God, afterlife, etc. exists, the function is still that they exist until they do not (even if they are eternal) which means the objective purpose is still survival, and the highest realization of that survival is still indefinite existence.

Whether one pursues indefinite existence via the God route or via the phenomenal realm, it is pursued all the same, and I don't see any conflict in pursuing both. If one pursues neither, then they have still fulfilled the objective purpose until they did not.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MTF]

@Lex DeVille, just out of curiosity, when was the last time you did something that made you feel like you were about to die, even if it was perfectly safe?

I find that I always feel way better mentally after freediving. There's a lot to it but feeling a strong urge to breathe while underwater resets something in the brain and makes you appreciate life way more.

@Timmy C, do you get something like this after getting repeatedly choked during training?

 

[Timmy C]

@Lex DeVille, just out of curiosity, when was the last time you did something that made you feel like you were about to die, even if it was perfectly safe?

I find that I always feel way better mentally after freediving. There's a lot to it but feeling a strong urge to breathe while underwater resets something in the brain and makes you appreciate life way more.

@Timmy C, do you get something like this after getting repeatedly choked during training?

Yeh when I do jiu-jitsu a few times a week, nothing is better for my mental health man.

It's actually a worry how much I rely on it for my mental health to be good.

If I get injured, or can't train for a week or two I feel my mental health decline. It's a void that other exercise can't seem to fill for me.

For me, it's the chess match I enjoy. I get choked and put in submissions on purpose against lower level people to make it more interesting, and practice my escapes.

 

[therealsultan]

following

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.