[Arm-netbook] Totally derailed topic

[John Luke Gibson]

On 5/9/17, Lyberta <lyberta at lyberta.net> wrote:
> doark at mail.com:
>> I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
>> potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
>> an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
>
> When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
> believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
> truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
> time to investigate.
>
> And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
> relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
> I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
>
> The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
> know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
> I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
> it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
>
> Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
> don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
> next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
> understand that I understand nothing.
>
>> In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
>> insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
>> opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
>
> I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
> them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
> hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
> it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
>
>

The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video
linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims
are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called
"trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality
which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to
self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the
consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go
extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones
(i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due
to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial
obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche
referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality,
suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims
and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence
of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less
fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of
christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy
ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would
die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so
obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would
utterly and completely fall apart.).

Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a
well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".

I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the
so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap"
rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by
rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict
which that religion endorses.
Thirdly,
______

.................| ->   vvvvvvvv
______

On the subject of Relativity:
______

.................| ->    ^^^^^^^^^
______

"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best
misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of
"Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning
of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes
constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types
of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated
battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered
constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent
with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be
possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs
to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work
to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to
assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have
existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted
to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective,
and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with
high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering
attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This
would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated
to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.