Naturalistic Philosophy

This is from a discussion started in one of Iambiguous’ threads: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529&start=50#p2448210

There’s a line between the natural and the artificial. The natural includes everything that is without the influence of humans, it also includes somethings that are. In other words, all that is artificial is human, not all that is human is artificial.

What may seem a minor difference may actually have major implications, so all things must be discerned with care and without exception. When one personally does this he is living naturally even if in an artificial environment. An environment itself, if built by those who do that, can be actually be said to be a natural environment.

There’s the existence of what I refer to as ‘base’ and what I’ll refer to as ‘noble’ and of course all that is in-between. I also refer to the two sides as that which has low quality and that which has high quality. Complexity itself is one of the major criterions for determining this, but I’ll omit any more detail on that for the sake of brevity.

All those who’re natural are seeking to become of higher quality than they are. It doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily of high quality, but that they don’t disassociates life and the act of becoming of higher quality. They don’t necessarily actively risk death to become more; the distinguishing character here between them and those who’re unnatural is that those who’re unnatural openly oppose becoming higher quality in order to pursue a longer life or empty purposes such as ill-defined ‘pleasure’.

Though those who are already of high quality do actively risk death to achieve even higher quality.

Those of high quality must respect those large number of those of low quality, but they have little or no regard for them.

Everyone is born with a certain degree of potential. We can never know what potential one has, or has had, for certain, but through honest consistent discernment we can make a good estimate. I have yet to establish significant criteria for this. Whatever one’s full potential may be, it’s already indicative of some degree of high quality if one aspires to reach it.

If I were to answer from the perspective of one fully and unapologetically immersed in the naturalistic philosophy then no those artificial people could not. But, obviously one who is very artificial has goal he sets for himself, base goals that usually revolve around a long pleasurable life, whether he would admit to it or not. If he makes it so that he has abilities that make him more able to live such a life, then he would certainly call it improvement and it would be so to him.

From the perspective of one who is natural and of high quality, he would also be able to see improvement in those who are artificial and are not making any progress on becoming natural. But, it would be a very cold impersonal perception of improvement, as in; the natural person may find the artificial person to be of more use to them or of less a nuisance than before.

Of course the purely natural or purely artificial person is just a conceptualization. People can of course be anywhere in-between and developing a criteria for determining this is the challenge.

Let me refine my above response. Firstly I answered with the assumption that one who is of high quality would not improve himself artificially, only naturally, but on second thought he can do either or both. So whomever it may be, one can improve himself artificially in a way that even the most high quality person would respect if that improvement is in something that could eventually be put to quality use. Becoming physically fit is almost always a way to improve oneself in natural, quality way, but for example to build muscle for appearance rather than strength or to ruin oneself playing a tough sport for no quality reason is not a quality or natural way to get fit. To become mentally fit in a quality natural way would have to not only be something that physically improves one’s brain’s processing power or memory, but also helps lead one to where he would at best become a quality person, or at the very least it would have to be something that doesn’t hurt one’s chances.

To be natural one must discern reality and seek to become higher quality. To find if becoming more skilled at any give thing is a noble pursuit one must find if it is natural and quality.

I said early something similar to:

An environment, if built by those who discerned with care and without exception, can be said to be a natural environment.

I would add that it must also be discerned honestly, and quality itself has nothing to do with it’s naturality. After all, there are many low quality but natural environments. Isolated tribes of people who regressed to where they forgot how to make fire, ant colonies, a planet of barren rock, etc.

So similarly for a skill:

A skill, if developed by those who discerned with care, without exception and honestly can be said to be a natural skill.

I understand the bad reputation the term has obtained. There is noble aspects to some aspects of current and historical upper classes or aristocrats, but not all of it. I’ll go through aspects of various aristocrat cultures and discern for myself which ones are noble. It seems obvious that classical music is more likely noble than modern music, but perhaps some modern music is actually more noble than some classical music, and of course classical music itself varies, there may in fact be some music that’s considered classical that is trash. I’m just beginning to study music, so I’m far from an expert.

Like most here I have a variety of interests and some of them are very base, like watching certain thing son TV. I’m partial to TV and so it’s one of the last base pursuits I’ll likely give up, but even there I try to have some standards. For example I’ll only watch sports with complex strategies. I’ll watch sitcoms in the style of those made when TV first came out, but won’t watch the newer style of sitcoms. I may watch a few documentary style shows, but only when there is actually something to be learned from them besides just getting another dose of the base of modern human behavior. TV is one of the last of the low quality things I involve myself in.

The type of nihilism I willingly perpetuated much of last year was never meant to be permanent, but I found I had to abandon it when I did when I found that it prevented self-respect. My task at slowly making my pursuits of higher quality was then as it is now. The latter helps me discern what tasks are of higher quality and gives me a bases as to why I should not so easily abandon them.

What do we use to discern between alternative states if not objectives and values?

You’ve made no reference to a natural or artificial objective/set of values.

Is not quality relative to one’s objective and values? The closer a state to one’s ideal, the higher it’s quality.

Would you deem all objectives/values natural?

If one pursues a higher degree of one’s objectives/values, are they always becoming nobler?

And if one’s only objective is survival at all costs, with no regard for quality of life?

On one hand, you say - this person is natural because the’y’re discerning with care, altering their environment to facilitate their objective. They are attaining a state of higher quality, when the put themselves into a stronger position for survival. On the other hand, you say - This person isn’t seeking quality, because their only objective is a longer life.

How do you discern between a good objective/set of values? You’re saying life for the sake of life / ill informed ‘pleasure’ are bad objectives.

T.V. for you, perhaps offers an artificial form of social interaction. You try to make the ‘interaction’ of more quality, by trying to restrict it to interaction where you can learn something, or something that is complicated enough to be intellectually stimulating/challenging.

Natural human interaction, involves learning from each other, challenging each other, supporting each other, caring for one another, playing with each other etc. The types of interactions that would make us feel well, and be prepared for future achievement and adversity.

Perhaps an objective could be found in there…

Actually discernment shouldn’t involve either, it should be based on previous discernments and as well defined criteria as is possible.

Most everyone in the modern world’s objectives and values are based on artificiality.Being new to this subject I haven’t well defined any natural objectives or values, and have not found any others who do so in a way that’s remotely believable. We’re on a frontier in a sense.

Yes and no. One must choose what quality means to himself. He can do so based on any criteria he wants. I chose it based on criteria which I’ve been explaining in this thread, furthermore I go so far as to insist that others should base their conception of quality on criteria that is at least somewhat similar.

Only if the ideal is quality.

No.

Yes.

That’s what I meant by longer life. One who only pursues life, with no their criteria is doing so at all costs.

Yes.

I don’t think I said that, if I did I was mistaken.

That’s what I’m exploring. Start by questioning your most basic beliefs, by making sure they are based on objective discernments, if they’re not then admit that they need to be changed. Then carefully and consistently compile one series of discernments on top of another.

Yes.

Actually it’s never challenging. Rather than saying I look for shows of more quality I would say I look for shows that are of less low quality. Most TV is a vice that I have yet to surpass.

Those are necessary parts of life, but it doesn’t necessarily help one find a quality objective. Though if one is spending time with quality people it would. I can only speculate on the quality of people I don’t know, but of the people I do know, the majority aren’t of any quality worth mentioning.

[

I am not sure how it fits in with the natural/artificial schema but let me comment on the ‘becoming physically fit’ example:
I Think it depends a lot on the relationship on has with one’s self and how this plays out in the process of becoming fit.
One might have the ‘right’ goal - say strength as you say - but one dominates oneself, does not listen to one’s own body. YOu may make gains in strength, even, but there is an abusiveness to the self-relationship. I Think I could say that this is artificial - in a sense one small piece of the self is treating the rest of the self as a Product, much like Hasbro marketing a toy. This can be seen more easily perhaps if the goal is ‘to look massive and tough’ but I Think it can be present due merely to process even when the goal is considered right or natural by whoever is judging.

What would some unnatural pursuits be?
Some natural ones?

Still unsure despite the example.

There’s skill that does not move me in both. Adn then also skill that does in both.

As far as noble: I have seen the term used even with noble savage, so I suppose the issue is rather complicated. I Think you’re going into what is noble about specific aristocracies and what is not would be helpful.

I couple, often, especially related to online forums, the Word noble with an ideal image/set of images and often adjectives. (the specifics vary, but the ideal and some set or other of adjectives have been the rule.) The person then has this ideal in the mind and strives to fit themselves into the images and match the adjectives. So far your version of the Word has sounded different, but I am laying out what I have seen for contrast and comparison. I tend to Think such activities have done a lot of damage to people. By activities I mean the contruction of the ideal and the striving, often coupled with judgments of emotions/desires.

Does this naturalistic philosophy guide you when desire falls short or misleads you or does it contain a criticism of desire as a guide in any way at all?

I agree with this completely.

This thread is more difficult than I expected. The words ‘natural’, ‘quality’ and ‘noble’ all interrelate, but there are subtle difference in the way I define them that I need to work on expressing. The pursuit of nobility is one that I find more intuitive than anything so far. And I realize that isn’t the way to go, I really must be able to express, coherently, what I’m doing that others aren’t and I wasn’t before, otherwise I could hardly expect to be able to know that I’m going about it right.

I’ll get back to most of your questions later. You mentioned the noble savage, and in a sense I agree with that notion. My philosophy could certainly be considered to relate to Rousseau. Primal people are poly-theistic; their religion is closely connected with nature, so rather than deny nature as most mono-theists do they embrace it, good or bad. Then the question is about the depths of primal people. For example, I wonder how large a group of primal people can be before it would no longer be appropriate to refer to them as such.

Supposedly, the noble savages could actually constitute large well developed civilizations and of course some claim they did, such as, of course, with the Hellenic. But, I won’t take it as fact that there was any known civilization that was noble.

I was just thinking the other day that many native american tribes had traits that americans now identify with, not realizing that British colonists and later americans were influenced by governmental practices the natives had and also by the indian dislike for the kinds of leadership taken for granted by Europeans. Chiefs Always had to convince and if they lost the confidence or respect of their tribe, they were out of a job. And even as chiefs, they were not rulers. Natives considered themselves individuals and free agents in ways that Europeans had never considered, even the colonists seeking a Place to do what they wanted - which was often to live in very tightly fun small religious communities with leaders who had more Power and lasting Power than chiefs. They also treated Children as a different stage, something that was not part of dominant american Culture until hundreds of years later. I Think this connects with the native sense of self, since the Children were allowed to explore, not work, be coddled, play and develop individuality in ways that a Child coming from Europe would not have experienced.

I absolute agree about the polytheism (and pantheism and animism) being quite different from the effects of the monotheisms. There is a different relationship to sex, the body, desires, expressiveness and just how one moves in general.

I’m glad you brought up natural leadership roles. The leader of a natural people would have to be like the Indian chiefs. The opportunities to act like most modern leaders wouldn’t come so easily for him. He wouldn’t as easily wouldn’t be able to have several layers of private and public allies and bury opposition in a flood of obfuscation. He would regularly be asked to explain himself to almost any adult male that has a grievance.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me an important feature of tribal councils is their lack of a fixed itinerary, and a especially their lack of a time when discussions must end even if before all are ready.

An idiot wouldn’t be able to lead, nor one who has mixed motives. The leader would have to be capable of spending all night arguing with one with a grievance until he satisfies him, the majority of the tribe asks the one with the grievance to sit down or the tribe decides the leader’s incompetent and can no longer lead.

A leader must be capable of insisting.

Let’s say only natural people are involved, but the one who leads in of very high quality and the rest are of very low quality. That he’s the best choice for leadership is obvious to him and in most cases to everyone else. But, should the time come where he must lead the tribe places for their own good, for reasons they have trouble understanding, the leader wouldn’t be able to claim superiority and ask for simple trust. He would have to insist upon his logic, and go through the tribal council as any other leader would. Even the most superior leader would lose his position if his convictions were frail. If he thought of leadership as only a game he wouldn’t be able to find the patience to do what he must to keep the respect of his tribe. Even the more dim natural people would eventually detect one of base integrity if they were forced to succumb to near endless questioning.

Nicely conceived and put. I laughed. It sounded so good.

My impression has been also that there was a lot of ad hoc decision-making, problems and conflicts ending up in more formal settings.

For clarity I want to mention I am still not fully clear of what you mean by natural. it’s a bit like Learning a Word in Another language. I have some sense, via meaning as use, and I will use it in ways that I Think work, which is better than wainting around until you are sure when Learning a language. But as yet I feel less than fluent with it.

In the last scenario above, this is Always a problem. When someone has a leap of insight. Is too many steps away in knowledge, insight or intuition on some issue in relation to those he wants to at least act in accordance with what he knows or intuits. In natural leader situations I Think, even with ‘low quality’ others, there is a tendency to have acknowledged that intuition must be used on occasion. Perhaps in the scenario the leader has used it, or perhaps the leader knows but the others cannot follow his logic. But even they will be more versed in quality intuition, I Think, than unnaturals. Because naturals are more up front about decisions based on intuition, which would often be a good choice for people who should be able to at least notice ‘oh, he was right again, damn, made no sense to me.’ In our society Everything makes sense. everyone is rational, on every issue. I could put ‘rational’ in citation marks. But actually I just Think of rational as a value neutral term. They can explain their positions using arguments. (they may be bad ones, but they are attempts to be rational and logical). I Think this has ruined all sorts of things, apart from the discourse. But that is likely a tangent. I just see more room in a natural setting for stupid people to go with smart ones. They don’t have to come up with a rational argument. They can, in good conscience, follow their gut urge to let the leader try or to simply follow the leader on this one.

I think we’re actually on the same page as far as the term “natural” goes. Nobility and high quality almost seem redundant; so I’ll just try to learn to better define quality before bringing up nobility again.

I doubt it would be easy for us to get on the same page as what quality means, but perhaps it won’t take long.

Firstly, I really haven’t read much of Nietzsche, but doubtlessly the words of others referring to him directly or indirectly have seeped into my thoughts, so if you find I sound like a Nietzschean just keep in mind that I don’t even know what that entails.

I realize it’s easy to just say that I easily understand quality and the potential for quality because I am of quality and have potential for more, and while this is true, the actual process of getting into the position doesn’t initially seem to relate to quality and potential.

I’m in the rare position to be just outside the establishment, as in many of the typical work/family/community obligations, and yet not very disillusioned and bitter anymore. I’m not bitter anymore mostly because I don’t currently have as much to be bitter about as I once did or thought I did, and also because I understand what my role was in being left behind in many ways by society; I take responsibility for where I was supposedly lacking and give society no responsibility for a lack regarding me. But, projecting towards the future, where anything can go wrong, I think that bitterness is less likely to come on strong because of the way I see society. I see it as low quality and myself as high quality; far more in the sense of potential than in actuality, but relatively high even now.

To me society is becoming more and more like wildlife would to one in the wild. It can’t fail me or succeed, nor can it flatter me or insult me; at least not like it once could. The low quality aspects of society, which encompass most of it, simple exist. And keep in mind I like animals as much as almost anyone.

The way I’m beginning to regard society is a natural consequence of increasing one’s quality. The quality person with even greater potential for quality can’t lag behind with sympathies for those of much lower quality, he must actually anticipate the loneliness to come as his quality increases. I may sound egotistical, but this actually saddens me more than it gives me a misplaced since of pride.

On a related subject; one with potential for extremely high quality will discern his potential as his quality increases and eventually realize that if the world is not welcoming to his degree of potential then the chances of fulfilling it are very dim. But, one will also understand that his potential can’t just lie dormant, it will either proceed or be destroyed. One such as this doesn’t differentiate death and languor. At first when younger, he only finds that he fears certain types of success, but later he’ll find that those ‘successes’ are actually languor. Then further on he’ll no longer fear languor as simple uncontrollable impulse, but actually take responsibility for his aversion to languor. Then he’ll actively try to survive the threat of languor like those of low quality fight to survive death.

The reasons for this are easily explainable. Languor is actually a reversion because of life’s natural disposition to decay. As quality increases he’ll begin to understand that to revert back to a certain extent of low quality is to lose the same extent of what is most valuable to his existence.

I had some trouble Connecting to the last post or perhaps having something to say, though I like the topic. No one’s come yet to take up the thread, so I’ll hop in again.

Animals are elegant - though with some it is subtle - and very powerful, generally, in some way or other. Humans can often avoid being either.

I Think the low and high metaphors can be misleading. I have all of what would be called low in me. I Think I have most of what would be called high. So in one way they keep showing me parts of myself I do not want to notice. (even KTS types who Think they are high). But further the modern, western, secular, trickle down from science worldview presumes disconnection and non-relation unless proven otherwise. This default is unproven and, in any case, I Believe the opposite.

So the low are connected to the high in my World. It is not sadly I am born amongst beings who do not understand me…
But rather that there are Connections - behind the scenes, especially since we are trained not to notice - between people who seem nothing alike. And if they are holding one back, this has to do also with what we accept in ourselves, what we feel guilty about and so on.

Habit is one way I look at the problem. Habits are short Cuts and not reacting to what the situation needs and you need. They can be based on impatience or hopelessness, no doubt other things. Langour it seems to me would be from a giving up, probably one that is not admitted.

If we consider all of reality as a machine, then it makes a lot more logical sense, and it appears more knowable.
Long ago, nature was a mystical force, containing some intelligences (nature-spirits). Now it is a mechanical, unconscious force.
Scientism and popular culture have rejected ancient magic, astrology, alchemy, religion, spirituality, etc.

I think that how we see reality has a list of temporary phases.
When we are young, our mom and later our dad = our world.
Later we get to a mix of mom, dad and self.
Later, self grows, just enough so that religion may take place, and if no religion, some kind of cultural system.
Later, the religion is refined, the best parts ideally removed, the worst parts abandoned.
We’re left as half religious moralists.
Next, darker thoughts, some suffering.
Ideally, next a resistance towards meaningless forms of suffering.
We start asking why-why. We try to see the underbelly of reality.
At that point the world must be a machine.
After that are endless stages of apprehending nature’s silent ways.

The end is near Taoism, I am guessing. In a fully applied form.