Welcome to the home page.
To the top you see a small row of links. These are the subjects for my website.
I started this a few years ago and it is not perfect. Just today (march 29, 2013) I decided to come in and review it. I'll try to fix it up and add some more content. I've decided to delete my older posts because I don't see them as prudent at all. They seem now, to me, to be improperly placed. I don't know why I would publicly display anything like that, but it was years ago, so who knows?
This is ILP. Some of my ideas are written down here.
My latest project I will post below. If I ever tried to write a book, a philosophical book, it would be short. I think we truly need to distill knowledge, so that it can be absorbed faster. So many philosophers have taken a life time to convey a few single concepts. We can't waste time like that. We have so little time.
The phenomenon of importance:
If I were to ever write I book, I would like to at least write about something important. So I thought to myself, why not make a little thread entirely about importance itself.
:What is importance? Importance refers to something which is important, something which is valuable, needed, or vital to life. What is need and value? As far as I've learned, value is a sense which had evolved into mammals with their emotional brain regions. One alternative to this is that the evolution was caused by divine emanations and mammals were meant to have emotions and values for higher reasons than survival and chance. I am not saying that is true, but it is one alternative to the standard blind watch maker paradigm. Either way, the value system exists, in simple form amidst animals, and in complex form amidst humans. Now I would also like to comment about will-to-self. This will is itself a bunch of lesser conflicting, merging and co-operating wills. I think the will towards the inner power is the basis of value and importance. If we didn't truly care about ourself, we wouldn't bother taking care of our bodies, but between most creatures there is self love and love for life. If not love, then at least some sort of instinct. As soon as a structure forms, it begins its will to self. 'Living' structures are especially geared to work towards selves, to replicate. When a complex human being feels something is important, he does not need to care whether or not it is "truly important", because no matter whether the self is true or false, it is already important, therefor what it wants is important, so that is the will to self, again.
Let us say that importance is truly good. It may not be an object. The universe may not care or agree, but we choose to care and not forget. That is life-affirming. Now when the mind holds many many values, we prioritize and categorize them. Each being has their own unique need and goal, but despite this, there is a common ground that each moral person has a goal, therefor having a goal, of any sort, is a most common form of importance. Goal-ness is very much akin to the mind's function, because the senses and the thoughts are already geared with a sort of goal, a mechanism. It seems to be to be intrinsic that all higher and more complex minds have goals. They did not get to this point by simply sitting around and doing nothing. On some level their own complexity was earned. They worked for it, and through work and productiveness it was produced. All of the will eventually manifests as being, especially being-of-meaning. So I am going to suggest that importance, in its true higher essence, is the inevitable outcome of life, because all these things only exist via much will and living.
So, importance is life, and life is importance.
Value is life, and life is value.
I am not referring to simple cellular life. I am referring to the largest, most complex organisms.
If life is value, if life is rightness, then destruction of life is nihilism.
So far, this idea to me seems true.
This is not to be confused with destruction of life for the sake of producing and maintaining life.
This is instead destruction of life for the sake of less valuable things, or non-valuable things.
In my own spirituality, one thing that is glorified is the destruction of the destroyer.
This is life-destruction inverted. To me it seems like a good idea. But that is a different subject.
:Since life is importance, we come to the next subject, what is life? To me life is not defined simply by organic materials being arranged and eating and reproducing. No, to me, the epitome of life is intelligence. The most intelligent life form feels, sees and knows the most things. He or she is most lively. Most sensual. A life with no mind is just a zombie, a machine, a lump of chemicals.
:The purpose of life. Although lower life can loose meaning, I feel that the highest life creates much meaning instead of loosing its meaning. The purpose of the highest kind of intelligence is to become more intelligent. That is the chief goal, which all else is built around. The most spiritual of persons are the most willful and intelligent of persons. Any pacifying, neutralizing spirituality is mere poison towards the soul of life. It is greatly encouraged to seek out a perfection and expansion of the intelligences and the willfulness of existence. These to me at least, seem to be the essence of all meaning, because "Meaning" is all to do with consciousness, and does not exist without it. So far so that meaning and intelligence are one and the same things, having two different appearances but the same soul and root.
The phenomenon of modernism:
First there was the printing press, which in part ended the dark ages, and also there was public education, and later we arrived at the mass media, which I believe has sadly failed due to the nature of the viewers, but has been partially enlightening at least. The modern world is capable of rapid education, in a way that was not found in common human history up until nearing our present point in time. But media has also become sacrilegious. At one time, knowledge and wisdom was a sacred thing reserved only for certain kings and priests. Today, it is almost the opposite, a whore of appeal and fast shallow answers. The art of persuation upon the general masses has also been mastered, and 9-11 is a perfect, perfect example of this. It's possible to set up events, and manipulate the media in such a way that one can shape the fabric of general thought. This controlled media, as well as the general nature of media - that is very relative to the phenomenon of modernism.
I live in canada, and here I am certain that the political leaders, although they being limited, have tried to set up a sort of tax eutopia where everyone able to work works, and in turn they all pay taxes, and spend their money on all the various corporations and shops that exist. To these leaders, the taxable eutopia is always the goal. There is little national purpose in our society. We must make our own purposes and goals. Years ago Hitler had a national goal and purpose, through propaganda. I'm not saying that was a good or finely executed purpose, but to me it shows at least that such a thing is possible. Mass media existed back then. Controlled media was the culprit. Such things were not possible years before. Making an empire is much easier now than it was before. I think this is also why nationalism has risen. With rapid communication it is possible to set up a series of beurocracies which govern over each sector of civilized application. Also to lessen the load, all sorts of smaller applications are controlled by the public instead of by the government. This makes the empire easier to run. Let people partially run themselves, while still paying taxes, and suppress any sort of civil conflict or internal war, through the police, and a pacifying form of mass propaganda, which is so effective that even in small doses people will listen to it.
The influences of modernism, the soil which it has sprouted from, are these things : christianity, democracy, capitalism and philosophy. There is more to it than that, but in my mind, these four things were of some of the greatest influences, the four mothers of modernism. From christianity came the idea of global brotherhood, and being as well as acting 'humane'. Democracy was all about self control, and self determination, the idea of the people governing themself, by any means. Capitalism wanted a stable state free from internal wars based on race, religion, and class. Capitalism wanted to suppress and end all class struggle, by means of making claims of all religions and races being of equal worth. This would keep the state unified and thus there would be a stable growing economy. From philosophy modernism recieved liberalism, humanism and a bit of conservativism too. Modernism has allot of history to it. I'm mostly ignorant of that. This isn't some great fantastic writing, I'm just taking some notes.
It also seems that the moderns believe in these things :
Things are in many ways as they appear. Human life is of the highest worth, except for the worst criminals. Almost any will and choice is entitled to the person, unless it runs against moral law. We are to be judged by the court or by the public if we break some of the moral law. Scientific method and most of its theories can be trusted. What the majority has agreed upon is also right.
This is an affirmative idea. Sense affirmation, inner self trust, trust of the perception, which is a part of the self. But in a higher form, we would suppress our trust in favor of some sort of deeper insight beyond the appearance. That is rare, and it is like a lost art, though. The majority of people simply believe in appearance, and call it truth, or reality. They do not limit themselves to calling it appearance. No. I made a thread about literalists.
This is like saying yes to our survival instincts, our top desire. People would be affraid today of someone who values some things higher than human life. Wouldn't they protest if a chicken or a cow had more rights than themselves. But mankind is not fair. They do not always follow the golden rule. So in some way, the ideal of human value is hypocritical.
This democratic spirit of saying it is right if it is right for you, this brings authority back into the individual instead of it being externalized. Yes authority can be miss-used, and also it is not total authority on right and wrong, but we are given breathing room, and expected to breath on our own.
People in general, in modern culture, believe greatly in crime and punishment.
The epitome of modern rightness and goodness has to do with consensus reality. They seem to not realize that mass media makes consensus very manipulable. To me, the best of the goodness is of the few, but that type of few do not feel drawn to political authority. If it was offered to them to be the leaders of the world, they would probably decline, and persue something they felt was of greater worth.
So long has mankind lived under deception. So many years were ruled by religion. And now it seems that mankind trusts mass media, as if the history of great deception has come to an end. On the contrary, although mass media makes rapid education possible, it is being used also for fast, never before seen deception. One of the greatest problems within the modernist is his over-trusting nature. Through over-trust, yes it seems to me that years of religion have ingrained a faith-like mentality which is still there even without the religion. Faith in authority, propaganda, knowledge, beliefs of many kinds, without proper and complete investigation. Also the modern people I meet have a very easy-going attitude, as if life was not as important; I would much prefer the opposite, even if it was imbalanced, the idea that life is too important, too great, too meaningful, too valuable. That would be much less toxic than apathy. In canada at least, the population goes on to pacify, and pacify, and pacify, until there is no will left other than the most presistent base desire. So I think the only hope left for humanity is to use genetic and nano technology someday to create the oh-so-needed posthuman race, but for many reasons I don't think that they will do it. Moderns claim to want progress, but what they want is peaceful progress. They want cencored progress. They want domesticated progress. They don't want natural, raw, evolutive progress, and that is one of their greatest problems.
In modern book stores, most books I see appear to be basically a waste of time, and in some ways even less beneficial than what is on the tv. I'm not sure which is worse, old fashioned religious fanatics, or modern passive domesticated man-animals.
Types of philosophers: (beta version)
I have come to believe that although the culture of canada in part comes from immigrants, we are still quite based in a religious slave culture which preceded our present modern culture, and as such, there are within our nation many sorts of overly peaceful, easy going, utilitarian and democratic folk, which in some ways fit into my negative descriptions of them. Despite all this, and the domestication of humanity, there is some wolf left in the dog, some philosopher left in the man. So I do not see it as futile that I should be writing towards a specific type of a person.
- [some types of philosophers and thinkers will be listed below] -
the overly positive
the overly peaceful
the overly negative
the religious, and the knowers
the short thinking (coming to conclusions too soon)
the babbling philosophers (some of the classics)
the ideal philosopher
I will list now, a few types of philosophers, and why I disagree with their mentalities.
The overly positive:
Now I would not mind the love of life itself, but as you may know, too much love for something can be imbalancing. There is a difference between a raw unmastered love, compared to a stable, strong and healthy form of love, which is not despirate or causing one to feel anguish. Also at times, I happen to believe that death is necessary, especially for a carnivore or for someone which has enemies, but if there is so much love of life as to not ever want to cause death, that love has caused a restriction upon its host. Destroying life is like saying no to life. One says no to its plea, to its demand that it be let to live. But sometimes we must say no. Denial of life is also relative to self-denial, resisting pleasure or pain for a greater goal.
The overly peaceful:
I have come to conclude that things such as defense and destruction, when controlled by a creature, are completely necessary, and all things would die quickly if they did not have defensive and destructive capacities. Although an ideal life would not have many needs, real life on earth requires conflict. Even though conflict and resistance is life-destroying in too large a dose, in a certain dose it is essential for strength, evolution and living. Life is at constant conflict with external forces and entities. One of the meanings of life is to fight. Now, an overly peaceful philosopher will forward all kinds of soft philosophies. To them, in their mind, a life of greatest ease is greatest good. They do not know that ease destroys strength itself, and that strength is vital for life.
The overly negative:
Life is difficulty. Without difficulty there would be no life, and without life nothing would experience difficulty or suffering, but too much suffering can drive a person mad. I am not 100% sure of this, but I am thinking that humanity is at its best when there is both pain and pleasure at the same time, one compensating for the other, because pure pain is simply a soul rotting force. Pain leads to the philosophy that life is bad, which then leads to a bad form of nihilism, or anti-value. The idea is basically that something-suffering is not as good as nothing-not-suffering. Most negative philosophers, whether they admit it or not, believe that a good life is not possible, or even they go so far as to say that good is not possible. A person's mood deeply influences their perception of the world. There are many sick perspectives, and weak perspectives, but one with a good eye can easily see a healthy and strong perspective. When under stress and suffering, the world begins to appear almost as a hell-like place. They would forget that many animals do not really suffer all that much in the wild, and if they should fall ill, truly ill, they would die rather quickly with not that much pain. Also some species have a special mechanism which limits pain, and I have forgotten the name of it. Negative philosophers are the philosophers of impossibility. To them, so many wonders are simply ignored as impossible or unreal. This type of thinking is short, too, which is bad for us.
The religious and the knowers:
In canada I have come to believe that there is less religiousness than in the united states. There are many religious folk who are basically moderate, or like, non extreme. These people are hardly a problem, but the super religious still exist in some places as well. I'm not going to claim that a modern protestant is somehow insane and bad just because he has some faith in a God figure and in an ancient text like the bible, but my problem is with the people who take an intensity and a lack of humility into a holy abrahamic book. They are the know-it-all type, that I think is the worst type. The type which would say "the bible says this, but it could be wrong, but I think it's right, because of these reasons" is hardly the problem. The type which claims the bible is perfect and 100% true, and they read it, therefor they are 100% right, that is a philosophical problem. When atheists of poor quality claim to be 100% right via science, that is also a philosophical problem. There are some reasons for why it is a philosophical problem. One main issue is that if you think you are 100% right, you wont check if you're wrong, and we all should know we are wrong at times. So what I am describing is a non-critical mind. This has been coined as 'faith', by the modern atheists, even though I would instead call it absolute non-critical beliefs, combined with zero humility. So my problem isn't with all religion, it is my problem with a certain type of extremism, with a 'bad' type of a man or woman, and that is all it is to me. I will add that 'knowers', the negative context of knowers, are people which are not self-critical, and they think the world is more simple and knowable than it actually is. The worst of the religious are a type of knower. Now its opposite, there must be a clear destiction between the common "i don't know", and the negative "I can't know".
The short thinking:
Especially at ILP (ilovephilosophy.com) I feel I have noticed many short thinkers, and what I mean by this, is that they put little energy into the process of forming a thought or reading of an idea. Opinions are thrust forward before they have a chance to fully form or mature. I call this short thinking. On the other hand, the babbling philosophers have put too much time into one idea or set of ideas, but at least they can forward somewhat matured ideas. Matured ideas may even be uncommon, so that the obsessive thinker can become famous due to his knowledge of details. In some cases it might be so that the short thinker acts this way out of habit, while in other cases it might be that the short thinker acts in such a way due to his genes. There could be other factors besides. To me it seems that the short thinkers are almost inhumanly wrong when forming judgement, even misunderstanding simple ideas. I would wonder how they could function in daily life, but I have seen even more amazing foolishness as well which was even more mysterious as to how the person could function in daily life. The illusion of efficiency, it seems to me that in some cases this exists, so that the person feels they are being efficient when they put only a small amount of time into specific thoughts. What I'm trying to describe is the inner sensation of speed and correctness. A real philosopher is critical of himself, and he should notice if he is making too much error. However, a short thinker will probably not even take the time to reconsider himself. Due to the error-ridden nature of the human mind, I consider it vital to reconsider and question one's self, in moderation, but often.
The babbling philosophers:
I do not want to sound overly negative, and earlier I described why over-negativity is bad for the mind, but I feel that many of the classic philosophers, are at least in part, babbling philosophers, which use too much time and words for a single subject. The good side of this is that there are higher odds of the person learning something if enough time goes into it, and this I believe is why the classics had gained fame. The bad side is that the idea looses its speed and efficiency unless the reader manually condenses the understanding. Our time on earth is short, so we should, at least in my own perception, persue the good quickly. We have no time to obsess over minor details of things. We need to go strait to the heart of life, subjects, matters, and values, as soon as we are ready and able. It is not possible for a single person to read the whole of modern literature in the world, and when I see book stores and libraries, I think to myself that much of it is actually waste, such as a book made simply for mild entertainment, instead of being created for some greater purpose.
The ideal philosopher:
Let it be known that I do not consider myself an ideal philosopher, and this whole writing was not designed to glorify myself or belittle others. It is - a list of observations. That is all I can really have.
The ideal philosopher has the good kind of pain, along with the good kind of pleasure. This type of person is so rare because of how hard it is to find and then readjust the exact balance of negative, positive, strong, weak, genetically fit, etc. As such, even the finest philosophers in history have had defects. But they did have some good things going for them, and so they happened. The ideal philosopher has the genes of wisdom and quick, clear communication between the cells. He may also have some slightly larger brain. He or she may seek to fix the world and spread light, or simply hide and let it die as it must. Personally I would consider it more reasonable to let the majority of the world die, while preserving the finest things, not over-extending our will to want to heal the whole world, since that is again an imbalanced mentality. Death is freedom from cyclical force. Life is a chain reacting cycle, and some cycles are better than others. Some are more appealing. The ideal is to have the most appealing cycles for as long as possible, carrying on and on, while the malignant cycles should be let to die. The ideal philosopher will also understand natural force, while the knowers claim to know super natural force, which is thought to transcend nature, as it is an all-mighty sort of a thing, but no. This is false knowledge. Due to the keen eye of the ideal philosopher, time will not be wasted on the endless flawed options which one person or the next has fallen to.
I believe this is highly relative to the ideal philosopher, for ideal philosophy is an expression of the finest of human capacity. Someone whom walks a tight rope must do so in an almost perfect way. Not anyone may do it. Likewise the person with the greatest accuracy in shooting, this person must practice, but they must also be born for it, and in their life, by something like chance, they must so happen to get the opportunity, the desire, and the prospect to develop the art of shooting. Human capacity requires use, but also requires some type of base capacity, of the genes and how well developed the body and organs are.
The process of morality:
The goal of this text is to explain what morality is, why it is right or wrong, and to write such with not too many words.
meta morality, pre-moralization
how we moralize things
Meta morality, pre-moralization:
It is possible to moralize anything, but the meta-morality is a thing before it has even slightly been moralized. Before we moralize, we measure, and before we measure and compare, we feel and sense, and before we feel and sense, we arguably are. It goes like this: being -> feeling -> thinking and judging -> defining, believing, and complexifying. I will claim that things at the most elemental and tiny level are not normally moral, even though they are wonderful and valuable to me, and I think they should be valuable to any good and wise person. But, things at their elemental stage, at their smallest essence, are basically like force, information, and dimensional category. In modern terms, the meta moral is energy, which is basically of an infinite supply, so that morality can be anything, be anywhere, possibly, infinite like its base, if things so happen that way.
How we moralize things:
Moralization is the fussion of form and element, the transformation of a certain element into a form. Moralization is a type of formation, and structuralization. Morality is an additive. It is like how we add our stomach acid to food, but in this case, it is adding guidance and priority to senses. I am refering to the truest best morality that I feel I can, not to the superficial crap morality which I will address later. First there is 'energy', motion. After that, sense systems react when exposed to change, to energy. Reaction is the meta sense. The energy transforms many times over before it becomes a thought. It is very non-literal once it reaches the mind, but an ideal sense and thought symbolizes the world well. If I have remembered correctly, I once saw a little story on tv, a documentory about bats. In a large cave, with many nestings, over a thousand bats flew in and out, mother bats, and the one bat was able to filter out all the noise and find the unique signature sounds that its baby makes, then find it every time, perfectly, and feed it. Life is capable of amazing precision, dare I call it a form of perfection. Now if, and I think it is possible, if a being can be very precise with thought, then the truest morality possible will indeed happen in some planet or plane. So, I am claiming that at least precise moralization can and will happen.
Although I have wanted, for a long time, super-human or para-human morality, I've still mostly only got human morality, I think. Humans are so wise in one way, and so foolish in another way. They fail with things, including life. So they have produced failing and 'wrong' morality, besides having some good and right ideas. If we are not like the example of the bat, if we cannot filter out the layers of crap, we cannot find what we want, and in this case what if we want true and best morality? So much filtering and experiencing. Human morality is an expression of the human system. This additive to culture and thought is everywhere. We are under this water and living in it at all times. I have noticed that some ex christians have become so betrayed by a morality that they throw it all out, they may even hate it, and say that amorality is better, or even that amorality is the best truest thing. I am not making that kind of claim, because I am assuming the best morality wont cause any problems, or it will cause only a few problems and cause allot more benifite. Morality is what defines and controls our personality, along with its conditioning and instinct. Due to our human nature, our malable mind, outside minds can send in things and control and change things. Bad morality originates within bad communication, for example. We absorb the crap from others, from maybe even ourself, and a wrong morality forms. A morality which forbids the natural and good things, either in part or even in full, or it may suggest you kill someone and that is good. During the world wars, both sides thought they were doing good and right. This is the madness of human existence, where in opposites both consider themselves true and good. And so, this human morality is considered so bad that it is self contradicting, illogical, ripe for rejection. That is part of the human problem.
I have tried my best to form the most perfect morality that I can. Maybe my religious passed has shaped it. The idea is basically that godhood is the best thing, and that it should be persued, no matter how difficult or even how impossible it seems. In this case, godhood means infinite perfection, power, intelligence, goodness, even infinite selves, transcending all things and perfecting them when ever it is proper to do so. Now, this sort of thing some cannot imagine or understand even at the edges, even slightly, but to me, I feel I slightly understand it, and that is why I want it. Also I conclude there is no God, but there should be, for that would add so much more to everything. When we feel energetic and full of life, it is pleasurable to release our creativity upon the world and reshape it into what we desire. Godhood is like the highest expression of personal desire, pleasure and power. This would replace death with life, for it also seems to me that we live in a highly dead realm. If you haven't felt so alive and high and real and meaningful, you may not understand the urge for more of it, the urge for godhood. It's an emotionalism. Out of the three, which would be best, (1) giving and adding more to life and reality, (2) destroying life and reality, or (3) leaving it all alone? I concluded that the first was the best, and that is why the whole godhood thing seemed right.