Utopia and/or Dystopia that IS the Questions n

It has recently surfaced that we as mortal beings have a choice in determining where we want to go. For a long time , at least in recalling modern history we have been bombarded with pronouncements on billboards, new age visionaries, sidewalk Christs bedraggled and amply costumed for the part, proclaiming ‘heaven or hell your choice , and born again , confess to Christ, and such.

But underneath it all , such advertisements, at times, rather than doing good, confuse masses, who rather than be saved, and reach higher plateaus of conscious belief in their situation, tend to panic , resulting in a general fall , into the vat of mass abject suppression of their own subjective denial of their separate insight into the nature of their feelings of hostility , all fallen, and existentially trapped,

They hope to revive their momentum to enable themselves to rise above , and truly freely arise , but they realize that being with so many indistinct mortals, they are held back from that attempt by virtue of their bonding familiarity with each other.
So what to do? They attempt to nominate an examplary model with such characteristics which viably can pull them up, like a helium ballon, that can overcome the magnetic pull from below.

Generally, that attempt should work, and works on paper, but just like Hindenburg, become a symbolic failure of the machine saving mankind, a threshold which is yet to align with the sign of the times, a failure of come mythical proportions, announcing the coming of a threatening epical limit .
,leaving unresolved holes in it’s wake,

Dystopia appears as unavoidable in this scenario.

But there may be an intrinsic silver lining between the far apart points of light illuminating the universe, which fall off quickly as the universe expands. And what that is boggles the mind, not only those who are gnashing their teeth in the eternal underworld, but those masters of the universe, who are dawning to the realization that the epithet: one should help their brother as well as themselves to join the arisen, but that time is running fearfully shorter with every day’s passing.

One view is based on proto theological writings, such as those of long standing belief, that karma is deduced from one’s will in addition to the judgments of higher powers at the gate, that is based on idea that one is not responsible for intergenerational sins of omission and/or commission. In that sense that we are born with a clean slate can be modified by how much we can remember of our genealogical background, down through the ages.

If the above is allowed, we must admit that our existence here and now is a continuous process of awareness, of the conscious unfolding of how we have managed to get to this level of consciousness.

When we are falling,we get lost in all the variable possibilities which we had to abandoned in the search for an ultimate model of our source of existential creation, and that growing uncertainty accelerates our fall, finally , if not broken, the plunge is inevitable That brake, puts us in a phenomenological epoche that seems permanent at the time, but later on it appears as moving unnoticeable.

The final point is that such temporary stay, crates a pseudo difference to come up between belief and fact, and such creates a large whole to appear between what is truly based on a reductive, self created hole of self correctable coming trouble and one for which we are not responsible, ergo inter and intra generational.

The default mode of escaping such a situation bring up the subordinate problem of accessing the sources of that responsibility: indigenous or exogenous .

Do you agree with this reasoning, and if you do, does the idea of modal simulation of succeeding generations are based on a simulated general contradiction, and that consequently, we are such simulated contradiction, that bring our conscious realization as a necessary process?

Agree to disagree.>

topia and/or Dystopia that IS the Questions n

Philosophy ForumsSociety, Government, and Economics

It has recently surfaced that we as mortal beings have a choice in determining where we want to go. For a long time , at least in recalling modern history we have been bombarded with pronouncements on billboards, new age visionaries, sidewalk Christs bedraggled and amply costumed for the part, proclaiming ‘heaven or hell your choice , and born again , confess to Christ, and such.

But underneath it all , such advertisements, at times, rather than doing good, confuse masses, who rather than be saved, and reach higher plateaus of conscious belief in their situation, tend to panic , resulting in a general fall , into the vat of mass abject suppression of their own subjective denial of their separate insight into the nature of their feelings of hostility , all fallen, and existentially trapped,

They hope to revive their momentum to enable themselves to rise above , and truly freely arise , but they realize that being with so many indistinct mortals, they are held back from that attempt by virtue of their bonding familiarity with each other.
So what to do? They attempt to nominate an examplary model with such characteristics which viably can pull them up, like a helium ballon, that can overcome the magnetic pull from below.

Generally, that attempt should work, and works on paper, but just like Hindenburg, become a symbolic failure of the machine saving mankind, a threshold which is yet to align with the sign of the times, a failure of come mythical proportions, announcing the coming of a threatening epical limit .
,leaving unresolved holes in it’s wake,

Dystopia appears as unavoidable in this scenario.

But there may be an intrinsic silver lining between the far apart points of light illuminating the universe, which fall off quickly as the universe expands. And what that is boggles the mind, not only those who are gnashing their teeth in the eternal underworld, but those masters of the universe, who are dawning to the realization that the epithet: one should help their brother as well as themselves to join the arisen, but that time is running fearfully shorter with every day’s passing.

One view is based on proto theological writings, such as those of long standing belief, that karma is deduced from one’s will in addition to the judgments of higher powers at the gate, that is based on idea that one is not responsible for intergenerational sins of omission and/or commission. In that sense that we are born with a clean slate can be modified by how much we can remember of our genealogical background, down through the ages.

If the above is allowed, we must admit that our existence here and now is a continuous process of awareness, of the conscious unfolding of how we have managed to get to this level of consciousness.

When we are falling,we get lost in all the variable possibilities which we had to abandoned in the search for an ultimate model of our source of existential creation, and that growing uncertainty accelerates our fall, finally , if not broken, the plunge is inevitable That brake, puts us in a phenomenological epoche that seems permanent at the time, but later on it appears as moving unnoticeable.

The final point is that such temporary stay, crates a pseudo difference to come up between belief and fact, and such creates a large whole to appear between what is truly based on a reductive, self created hole of self correctable coming trouble and one for which we are not responsible, ergo inter and intra generational.

The default mode of escaping such a situation bring up the subordinate problem of accessing the sources of that responsibility: indigenous or exogenous .

Do you agree with this reasoning, and if you do, does the idea of modal simulation of succeeding generations are based on a simulated general contradiction, and that consequently, we are such simulated contradiction, that bring our conscious realization as a necessary process?><

Why?

The visible is reprogramming toward the invisible Substance, at the point where they could not be discerned as contradictory, based on pattern recognition.

Sorry could not elucidate as a viable and necessary condition of it’self.

Why? The political, the semiotic, and the social, primate in synch, connecting the Alpha and Omega

That in and of itself is something highly debatable. Human beings think through abstract means. That gives them the idea that they have a choice.
But those choices are motivated by the same things and instincts every non self conscious life is motivated by.

Choice implies you can pick any route.
And thats not what human beings do. They will always pick the beneficial, the optimal, the preferred route.
They have no more choice than a starving goat has when it sees a pile of cabbage, humans merely have the capacity to attach a reasoning to their instinctive behavior.

Honestly, (considering your entire text) you have hoarded too many interescting problems in one place.
What you described might look like one problem, but in reality its probably closer to around 10-15.

And in all honesty i fail badly at responding to such texts because i would have to take it apart first, which would be an entire book.
If i may suggest, start much smaller.
Talking about the future of the entire species, entire country, entire society is nonsensical before you can contend with how the individual functions.

You separate external and internal problems inflicted upon you, but that too comes down to me vs the rest of society because what part of you is truly internal?
Its a fun thought experiment.
Name a few ideas and thoughts that are truly unique to you, which you came up with on your own, without external influence. How much of the information you hold is truly your own? How much of it was verified by you and how much of it is just taken as granted because you trust some random sources?

But sure.
Checking yourself what part of you is you, and what part is “inflicted upon you” is beneficial.
Its nowhere a complete diagnostic method, but it is most certainly a diagnostic method for many things.

It will of course not solve society level problems.
Those are a league of their own with inherent paradoxes, such as a system thats being created to solve a set of problems, forfeits it’s own reason for existing the moment it solves said problems in question.
Compounding to that, new generations which come afterwards who never got to experience said problems, will find themselves with a system that holds no meaning or value to them and thus will inevitably go to destroy it down the line, resulting in what is usually referred to as the 4 generation cycle of Strauss Howe.

This latter also answers your question:
Dystopia.
The answer is always Dystopia.
And after that: Destruction.
And after that: Rebuilding
And after that: once again utopia and prosperity, just to kick off the entire cycle again.

The wheel keeps turning.
The problems are much more fundamental to our nature than simply be resolvable via a few levels of diagnostic tools.
You should go back to the very start of the story: What are human beings?
Why do they act the way they do?

You will understand the nature of the problem once you threw away all lofty ideas of human exceptionalism.
When viewed as just one form of life among many others, the issues of humanity are almost comically simple to understand.

I’m mixing exceptionalism with extensions of intelligence,as subordinate beings did not evolve into the brain, that is simulated to retain a like structural affinity: sort of the simulation rising non virtually. .
Guess the basic idea here rests in the idea of the progressive assemblage of distant point, ideas, phenomenon strung out immediately before the invention of telescopes, holography , to enable for Jung to come up with the idea of instantaneous recollection , to vastly more than chance

The way my own mind nd works is that short term memory is progressively desisted, while long term ones do not show that resistance. The search for hard and soft flops, shoe a regressive interaction at a rate of progression that are diametrically related.
To my mind such are central features in the workings of link between sentinel , and artificial intelligence.

I’m much more reluctant to show how uncertain Meno was on how he came on such pre positions, and offer that as a kind of ‘ontological phenomenology.

I can not wait for my mind to sprout the name Jung gave for this process, so will search for it.

‘Synchronicity, the search was successful.

1 Like

I had to support the above loosely at first then more narrowly searching for authentication through a nexus which connects synchronicity with underlying ‘way out’(my term’ motives and found this: secondarily, the primary source was not successfully copied.

:slight_smile:

“Inside each one of us, in varying proportions there exists part of yesterday’s man; it is yesterday’s man who inevi- tably predominates in us, since the present amounts to little as compared with the long past, in the course of which we were formed and from which we result. But we do not sense this man from the past, since he is so much a part of us; he is the unconscious part of ourselves. Consequently, we do not take him into account, any more than we take account of his legitimate requirements. On the contrary, we are very much aware of the most recent acquisitions of civilization since, being recent, they have not yet had time
to settle into our unconscious.
Emile Durkheim The work of the painter, the poet and the composer and the myths and symbols of primitive man [should] seem to us if not as a superior form of knowledge, at any rate as the most fundamental form of knowledge, and the only one that we all have in common; knowledge in the scientific sense is merely the sharpened edge of this other know- ledge. More penetrating it may be, because its edge has been sharpened on the hard stone of fact, but this penetration has been acquired at the price of a great loss of substance; and it is only efficacious in so far as it can penetrate far enough for the whole bulk of the instrument to follow the
sharpened point.”

[Note: this entrance of a sharpe edge loosing substance; in relation the participation mystique, is another level underneath:

I’m trying to formulate this process in terms of objectification of substance by the look, Sartre) as a feeling of fall, into the magical realm of the projected piece from non casual sources, …]

No. First of all, choice implies there is more than one available projected outcome. It is rarely, if ever “any route”, and human beings do it all the time. Picking the optimal, most benefical route? Well, we try. This sounds like a complete dismissal of free agency all bent to the will of instict. I don’t think it works that way.

“Any” already implies that there are multiple choices.

Not complete. I cannot in good conscience argue that there is absolutely no free agency.
But i can by all means argue that its BRUTALLY more limited than people make it out to be.

Choice implies you have the ability to choose.
Well. Do we?
Cause i think we will always try to choose the best option.
We are directed, guided, pre-programmed, name it what you will, but we are not choosing, we are seeking outcome, and the outcome we seek is largely influenced by our instincts.

There is a reason why every human desire can be translated into a basic animal instinct.
Ambition/wealth is just an expression of Social status/dominance
Art/Hobbies are an expression of play/curiosity
Romance/Marriage are an expression of reproduction/attachment
Community/social media are an expression of Social affirmation

Where the exact line in the sand is, i cannot tell you, but i can by all means tell that our “free” will is hardly any more free than that of any animal’s.
Our “free” choice is hardly any more free than any other living being’s.

You can call it more informed. You can call it more abstract and even complex.
But it most certainly aint more free.

I choose not to believe any of that, free agency is exactly what sets humans apart from other creatures, we can converse and reason, which influences our actions. There are of course certain choices that offer the path of least resistance, sure, but there are also other choices which may lead to more long term gain. The person must use their own reason to deduce which choices to make and when.

Problem is that none of this counter argues my point, but lets agree to disagree.
I dont like to “debunk” other people’s beliefs.

Why not? If they can be debunked (completely, not by being weighed against another “belief”), then it’s probably best to say something.

Because they result in one of two outcomes:

  1. I piss them off because i am counter arguing some core value they hold
  2. I convince them of something they cannot handle due to missing context (i.e. admitting to the idea of lack of free choice would in their mind diminish the value of human life and existence)

So i prefer not to press where i think i could cause damage.

Do you mean a complete lack of free choice? If so, how would that manifest itself?

I did say im not arguing 100% lack of free choice.
Mainly cause there is no clear definition for it.

In fact, let me turn this around. Why is an animal’s choice not a free choice?
What distinguishes an animal’s risk/reward calculation and arriving at a decision, from that of a human’s?

Not necessarily saying it is a free choice, but we’re already battling in binary definitions. What is free choice? Maybe just call it semi-free choice instead? Seen the whole determism vs. free agency debate on here and there’s a lot of gradient factors getting left out every time.

Our choices are affected by the environment; e.g. if it’s cold, put on more clothing or generate heat. If hungry, find food. Also by morality, that innate sense of boundaries wich differ from person to person, where is the line not to be crossed? Also by our own hopes and dreams, and what we want things to become, that affects our choices too. But at the end of the day, we are the ones behind the wheel, and can limit or override any of those factors. For example; people go on hunger strikes, Wim Hoff sits bollock naked in the snow.

There is more likely, but not pre-determined, that’s nonsense in an emergent universe, but then again so is the idea of complete free agency, that’s just as nonsensical. No system exists in isolation.

1 Like

Sure. My original point was too that calling it “free” would imply that its clean and clear our choice, but there is clearly a lot of “influence” that directs it, so it cant exactly be “free”.
So sure. Lets call it “semi-free”.

The question is. Do animals not experience the same things?

The very first one clearly they do. If its cold, they seek shelter, they cuddle up to eachother etc. If they are hungry, they too find food.

The second one of morality is a step up, but is that really exclusive to humanity? I mean clearly flock and herd animals have their own little group rules too. Monkey is the low hanging fruit in this argument, but for them, most of these things are proven and studies. They have wars, prostitution, power play, rules, revenge… and so on.

The third is hopes and dreams. Well. Even a cat can show desire. Try eating in front of it. It will hope that you give it some too.

But to all of this you could say that the quality of it is different.
Sure. I will steelman your argument there. Animal emotions, desires, needs and morality are simpler and less abstract than a humans. But i’d argue that they are all there for animals too.

Yes counter-intuitive acts are a very good counter arguments since you could say that if we are all instinct, then surely our instinct would prevent us from acting against our own benefit.

Well its partially true. This is where abstract thought shows. However, at the same time, its also not a clear cut answer since all of our self destructive and counter intuitive actions are usually well within the bounds of our psychological system.

What does that mean…
In short, that even self destructive actions have a reason attached to them.
Something which made the person arrive there by choice.
Someone suffering from chronic depression, an abuse victim for instance, deciding that they are going to end their suffering. How much is that not instinct? How much is not wanting to suffer and unreasonable conclusion?

Well. This is the part where the lines become blurred.
Are actions which result in self-harm, going really against the norm?
PTSD is not a normal state, but the reason why people have PTSD are considered perfectly normal, such as soldiers witnessing extreme things in a war. You are pretty much expected to develop PTSD then, and it is in fact unnatural and not normal for you to not have any kind of repercussions.

So i dont know.
When it comes to this one, its really a decision of your own where you wish to stand.

Yes, this is an excellent summary. I fully agree with this one.

1 Like

Mental health or lack of it is another influencing factor that probably degrades free agency somewhat.

1 Like

We have a lot of brain ghosts. Thats for sure.

1 Like

Is it because all the stuff you did was just the wrong free will, and now you’re using the right one? As if it never happened, clean slate? Not even really you if you think about it?

I guess too if you do it again in the future it isn’t really you either anyway. It’s just free will randomness. Magic.

Haha no I don’t know.

What/who was that a reply to?
Is it only me or the reply system is broken nowdays? I reply to ppl, i quote ppl and neither the reply mark shows up, nor the quote.

Ok, I see your point.

1 Like

Sorry, delete or ignore my reply, it was not addressed to me.

1 Like