inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

DJ Squiggle · 07-Oct-11, 08:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

So what happens when people stop being so closely aligned with their ego?

Nihilism.

Kid A and I have already epxressed a fondness of its expression in Epicureanism, which I only discovered in an essay on Nihilism found while researching for this thread.

However, that same essay exposes a more sinister popular contemporary form of Nihilism.

Quote:

In The Banalization of Nihilism (1992) Karen Carr discusses... “cheerful nihilism”... distinguished by an easy-going acceptance of meaninglessness. Such a development, Carr concludes, is alarming. If we accept that all perspectives are equally non-binding, then intellectual or moral arrogance will determine which perspective has precedence. Worse still, the banalization of nihilism creates an environment where ideas can be imposed forcibly with little resistance, raw power alone determining intellectual and moral hierarchies. It’s a conclusion that dovetails nicely with Nietzsche’s, who pointed out that all interpretations of the world are simply manifestations of will-to-power.

DJ Squiggle · 07-Oct-11, 08:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

We still might be agreeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Yes I think we might be

I'm glad you rule out certainty

I have been meaning to say that it has been a long time since I've heard/read a forum where I've been able to comfortably agree with opposing viewpoints. Sometimes the way a discussion is conducted becomes more important than the contents.

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 09:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Nihilism.

Kid A and I have already epxressed a fondness of its expression in Epicureanism, which I only discovered in an essay on Nihilism found while researching for this thread.

However, that same essay exposes a more sinister popular contemporary form of Nihilism.

Yeah, I'm not down on nihilism at all. I see it as misunderstanding the void, and metaphysically useless.

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 10:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I don't know.

Nah, I don't agree with this. People don't dislike others because of brand loyalties. People intrinsically don't like other people, for whatever reason. Cats don't like other cats. Indian Mynas hate other Indian Mynas. You're seeing a violent nature and rationalising the cause. I think violence is actually pretty common across the animal kingdom.

'Whatever reason' is the ego, it's not an intrinsic part of being.
What part of you feels threatened by other people enough not to like them?
It's the same part that gets anxious about possessions and envies others etc.

Quote:

The thing is, the growth fetish is exhibited in all kinds of other living beings, even the simplest. The fact that DNA replicates means that it has to consume resources. It is a dumb chemical compound which by its own nature creates further copies of itself. The very nature of replication implies growth.

The nature of life to spread and 'the growth fetish' aren't the same thing.

Quote:

I'd say little changes.

So much activity is ego driven, it motivates the majority of human behaviour, without it people would be content with being. And being would become something different altogether.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

It's one of those words/phrases that appears way too often.

Words are nothing more than general pointers, you shouldn't let your prejudice against any one cloud your judgement on the context in which it's used.

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 10:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Nihilism.

Kid A and I have already epxressed a fondness of its expression in Epicureanism, which I only discovered in an essay on Nihilism found while researching for this thread.

However, that same essay exposes a more sinister popular contemporary form of Nihilism.

No, it's not nihilism.
Life doesn't become meaningless without the ego.

DJ Squiggle · 07-Oct-11, 11:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

No, it's not nihilism.
Life doesn't become meaningless without the ego.

I reread the reference to Epicureanism in that essay and there is an ambiguous connection to Nihilism. As a philisophy history noob I personally have no idea but have found an article that you will be happy to hear explicitly argues a disassociation between the philsophy of Epicurus and Nihilism

Quote:

the Epicurean view is that being dead is value-neutral whence it follows that being alive is either good or bad, and only one of these is nihilism. Therefore, the Epicurean position does not entail nihilism.

In ultra-noob-style my next investigation of the man will be via a DC Comic called Epicurus The Sage

Quote:

a two-part comic book by William Messner-Loebs and Sam Kieth portraying Epicurus as "the only sane philosopher" by anachronistically bringing him together with many other well-known Greek philosophers. It was republished as graphic novel by the Wildstorm branch of DC Comics.

Only $10 from DC Comics or you can download from rapidshare (you will need some sort of comic book reader app to read the .CBZ files).

gravyishot · 08-Oct-11, 12:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

'Whatever reason' is the ego, it's not an intrinsic part of being.
What part of you feels threatened by other people enough not to like them?
It's the same part that gets anxious about possessions and envies others etc.

I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about the animal world. You've never seen cats fighting over territory? Myna birds attacking each other? Dislike, which is a violent emotion, seems more common in my observation of animals than like. You're imposing a human ideal on what seems to be a natural state.

Quote:

The nature of life to spread and 'the growth fetish' aren't the same thing.

Why? Are humans not life and therefore inherit its nature? Why do the two not correlate?

Quote:

So much activity is ego driven, it motivates the majority of human behaviour, without it people would be content with being. And being would become something different altogether.

This is an interesting statement to make. You are making a claim on others' state of being without ever knowing them. A person could be content with being and have an ego. No one knows what it is to be a tree, and no one knows what it is to be another person. So why are you judging a state of contentedness?

I don't even know if others' motivations are ego driven and I would feel a bit presumptuous to claim it. Maybe the things people do are just what they can do. Or rather because it can be done? A bird can fly and humans can't. A human can invent things and birds can't. Why must what humans can do be ego driven?

Quote:

Words are nothing more than general pointers, you shouldn't let your prejudice against any one cloud your judgement on the context in which it's used.

Words are so often overused to the point they are rendered meaningless. I like to avoid those words.

gravyishot · 08-Oct-11, 12:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Yeah, I'm not down on nihilism at all. I see it as misunderstanding the void, and metaphysically useless.

So what is the void then? How does a nihilist misunderstand it? Absurdism is where its at, anyway.

DJ Squiggle · 08-Oct-11, 12:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

A person could be content with being and have an ego. No one knows what it is to be a tree, and no one knows what it is to be another person. So why are you judging a state of contentedness?
I don't even know if others' motivations are ego driven and I would feel a bit presumptuous to claim it. Maybe the things people do are just what they can do. Or rather because it can be done?

I know motivation is not necessarily associated with either selfishness or altruism but when it does come to altruism...

Most days I don't stumble across anonymous atruism. OTOH it is hard to avoid the many actions of self-promotion (some blatant, some veiled, some in denial) and of anonymous nastiness.

claude glass · 08-Oct-11, 08:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

So what is the void then? How does a nihilist misunderstand it? Absurdism is where its at, anyway.

Nihilists think emptiness is blah. Emptiness is not blah.

Absurdism is one way to frame a problem, it's what you do with it that counts.

big eddie · 08-Oct-11, 09:19am

Looks like there is a bit more in the void anyway

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...nt-gas-in.html

twistedbydesign · 08-Oct-11, 01:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about the animal world. You've never seen cats fighting over territory? Myna birds attacking each other? Dislike, which is a violent emotion, seems more common in my observation of animals than like. You're imposing a human ideal on what seems to be a natural state.

You said 'people dislike each other for whatever reason' hence I assumed we were talking about people.
Have you ever seen an animal maintain a grudge?
Ducks fight all the time, then they float away and flap their wings vigorously to release the pent up energy, humans don't do that.

Quote:

Why? Are humans not life and therefore inherit its nature? Why do the two not correlate?

Naturally there is a relationship, but they aren't interchangeable terms, the growth neurosis is much much more prevalent in human activity.

Quote:

This is an interesting statement to make. You are making a claim on others' state of being without ever knowing them. A person could be content with being and have an ego. No one knows what it is to be a tree, and no one knows what it is to be another person. So why are you judging a state of contentedness?

I'm making a broad observation across the board.
The basic nature of the ego dictates that an individual may be temporarily satisfied, but that is not a permanent state and eventually they'll look to fill the void with something else.
It's blatantly obvious that the critical mass is constantly in a state of yearning.
We talked about this a few pages back in terms of maslows hierarchy.

Quote:

I don't even know if others' motivations are ego driven and I would feel a bit presumptuous to claim it. Maybe the things people do are just what they can do. Or rather because it can be done? A bird can fly and humans can't. A human can invent things and birds can't. Why must what humans can do be ego driven?

People just do what they do because it can be done is rather vague isn't it?
There is general direction in what people do, it's short sighted and tends to be built on self image and rolls
This can be repeatedly observed at almost any given time in all areas of society.

If you feel a bit presumptuous claiming it is then how is claiming it isn't any less so?

Quote:

Words are so often overused to the point they are rendered meaningless. I like to avoid those words.

No you've removed the meaning from it yourself, words hold whatever subjective meaning you give them. They are just pointers/signposts.

Do you feel like you're instinctively resistant to this idea mainly because of the 'new age' associations with it?

Try asking yourself the questions I asked you earlier that you said you couldn't answer with any clarity.
You will have an answer for yourself.

Why have you aimed to create the identity of yourself that you have?
And do you still do things that you feel add value to that identity?

gravyishot · 08-Oct-11, 02:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

You said 'people dislike each other for whatever reason' hence I assumed we were talking about people.
Have you ever seen an animal maintain a grudge?
Ducks fight all the time, then they float away and flap their wings vigorously to release the pent up energy, humans don't do that.

Cats seem to. I believe gorillas do to. I'm not sure you can analyse a duck - we don't speak duck language.

What is a grudge anyway?

Quote:

Naturally there is a relationship, but they aren't interchangeable terms, the growth neurosis is much much more prevalent in human activity.

Is it?

Quote:

I'm making a broad observation across the board.
The basic nature of the ego dictates that an individual may be temporarily satisfied, but that is not a permanent state and eventually they'll look to fill the void with something else.
It's blatantly obvious that the critical mass is constantly in a state of yearning.
We talked about this a few pages back in terms of maslows hierarchy.

I'm not sure the hierarchy is even accurate. In fact the idea of a hierarchy of needs seems absurd in itself.

Quote:

People just do what they do because it can be done is rather vague isn't it?
There is general direction in what people do, it's short sighted and tends to be built on self image and rolls
This can be repeatedly observed at almost any given time in all areas of society.

All actions of all living beings are short sighted. Why should they not be? Is it wrong to be short sighted?

Quote:

If you feel a bit presumptuous claiming it is then how is claiming it isn't any less so?

I'm not claiming it isn't. I'm not being definitive here. You reeled off a list of actions that people engage in that they do because of an inherent dysfunction. It seems a strange claim. For instance people seek knowledge because they aren't content with being? Why?

Everyone feels an inherent dysfunction, you can pile whatever you want on to it - material goods, knowledge, experience, self pity, violence, greed, hate, love, family, join a cause, rebel against another; whatever role people choose to identify with

Strip all these things away and you have a person in a vegetative state. Content with being, but at the same time only being.

When Mallory was asked why he climbed Mt Everest, his answer was because it was there. False humility? Maybe. But his reason was not about him but about the mountain. I find it odd that someone would want to write off all human activity and experience as nothing more than a selfish indulgence of the ego.

Quote:

Try asking yourself the questions I asked you earlier that you said you couldn't answer with any clarity.
You will have an answer for yourself.

Why have you aimed to create the identity of yourself that you have?
And do you still do things that you feel add value to that identity?

The thing is, I don't believe I have aimed to create any identity, and I'm not sure people do.

twistedbydesign · 08-Oct-11, 03:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Cats seem to. I believe gorillas do to. I'm not sure you can analyse a duck - we don't speak duck language.

What is a grudge anyway?

It's a build up of negative emotional energy, holding someone else responsible for something that irritates you.

Quote:

Is it?

Yes.

Quote:

I'm not sure the hierarchy is even accurate. In fact the idea of a hierarchy of needs seems absurd in itself.

Would you agree that food and shelter are more fundamental to survival than self esteem needs?

Quote:

All actions of all living beings are short sighted. Why should they not be? Is it wrong to be short sighted?

No it's not wrong, it's just not all there is and by limiting ourselves to that perspective we neglect others.

Quote:

I'm not claiming it isn't. I'm not being definitive here. You reeled off a list of actions that people engage in that they do because of an inherent dysfunction. It seems a strange claim. For instance people seek knowledge because they aren't content with being? Why?

For the same reason people buy Diesel clothes and apple products, and the same reason people fall in and out of relationships and become addicted to their partners. It's all part of the same yearning.

Quote:

Everyone feels an inherent dysfunction, you can pile whatever you want on to it - material goods, knowledge, experience, self pity, violence, greed, hate, love, family, join a cause, rebel against another; whatever role people choose to identify with

Quote:

Strip all these things away and you have a person in a vegetative state. Content with being, but at the same time only being.

No you don't, once the ego is removed a different motivation becomes more prevalent.

Quote:

When Mallory was asked why he climbed Mt Everest, his answer was because it was there. False humility? Maybe. But his reason was not about him but about the mountain. I find it odd that someone would want to write off all human activity and experience as nothing more than a selfish indulgence of the ego.

His reason was about him and the mountain, if his only feelings about the mountain were 'it is there' why would he climb it?
'It is there and I must know it' is more likely isn't it?
Everyone has had experiences that felt more present because they weren't identified with their ego at that particular time, the presence wasn't wrapped up in the accumulation of their life story, past and future, their focus was on the present.
Numerous things we do give glimpses of it
Creative activities that require your focus on the task at hand entirely do it, intense relationships and sex do it, drugs can do it..
Again, when I use the word ego I'm doing so in a much broader sense than the traditional definition.
But none of these things bring about lasting change, the ego creeps back in and causes the same issues to make their way back into peoples identity.

Quote:

The thing is, I don't believe I have aimed to create any identity, and I'm not sure people do.

Are you saying you have no self image?

Kid A · 08-Oct-11, 05:13pm

Gravy, seeing as though you were so adamantly against my proposal that there are essential traits, common to human beings in the 'cattle slaughter' thread, I reckon you should have a read over some of your recent posts.

I don't want to get involved in your discussion with Twisted, but I find it really strange that you choose to view some of these contemporary consumptive practices through a biological lens. They are quite evidently socially, culturally and historically contingent, imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

It's one of those words/phrases that appears way too often.

Yep. It has become like the word 'love' in a way; applicable to loads but ultimately quite crude.

big eddie · 08-Oct-11, 05:19pm

Whenever I see the word ego, I still think of anti-dandruff soap, because I remember reading it on the bottle/bar when I was a child.

http://www.mims.com/resources/drugs/...soap_47504.gif

Kid A · 08-Oct-11, 05:26pm

You should seek a good publishing deal with material like that bro.

edit: sorry about that

big eddie · 08-Oct-11, 05:31pm

I've been awake since 5:30, at work on 11 hours on a Saturday - going insane.

Kid A · 08-Oct-11, 06:26pm

Ouch, that's brutal. Post all the soap you want.

claude glass · 08-Oct-11, 06:38pm

I dunno, I reckon eddie's post was a stroke of genius.

didjeridude · 09-Oct-11, 08:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

The thing is, the growth fetish is exhibited in all kinds of other living beings, even the simplest. The fact that DNA replicates means that it has to consume resources. It is a dumb chemical compound which by its own nature creates further copies of itself. The very nature of replication implies growth.

Its about sustainability though. When DNA functions normally, the growth is sustainable because it is more akin to recycling than "growth" per se. When DNA replication gets out of control and becomes unsustainable, that is what we call "cancer".

Anyway its a ridiculous assumption to equate such a reductionist view with the complexity of an entire system. The behaviour of human consciousness is nothing like a single neuron which is far more complex and in turn nothing like a single strand of DNA. A single strand of DNA on its own is basically a virus. In that sense it knows nothing except to replicate itself. It has no choice in the matter. Humans do have a choice. We have the ability to choose sustainable growth versus non-sustainable growth. If mankind acted a little more like normal DNA and not dysfunctional cancerous DNA and started recycling more efficiently, maybe we could achieve the former.

Kid A · 09-Oct-11, 12:27pm

^ I have been doing my best to make this point. A scientific, 'descriptive' analyses is not only a little reductive, but redundant (in an 'ought' to discussion like this one). It's like continuously reminding someone of the evidence that international relations simply reflect a politically realist, 'state of nature' scenario, when they are simply (and pragmatically) trying to discuss how relations between two states may be improved.

For anyone who enjoyed the Adam Curtis article Claude posted, you might like his most recent BBC doco, 'All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace'. It's similar to the article in it's 'self-organised utopia' criticism, but tells the story with a techno-utopian focus along with the rise of Ayn Randian, 'virtue of selfishness' ideology in America. Really entertaining.

Media Player

edit: Wrong, ep 2 is called 'How the ecosystem was invented'. Yet to watch it.

twistedbydesign · 10-Oct-11, 07:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

I don't want to get involved in your discussion with Twisted, but I find it really strange that you choose to view some of these contemporary consumptive practices through a biological lens. They are quite evidently socially, culturally and historically contingent, imo.

It's not strictly a biological perspective but at their root they're are all products of the same thing.
An idea adopted by a collective and accepted as the norm is still born from mind.

Kid A · 10-Oct-11, 10:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

It's not strictly a biological perspective but at their root they're are all products of the same thing.
An idea adopted by a collective and accepted as the norm is still born from mind.

I'm not sure if I believe in the mind. And I'm not sure if reducing the woes of consumer culture to conception we have of a portion of our brain necessarily packs enough punch. Having said that, I don't think I have a better strategy.

Anyway, I'm confused. I was suggesting that what gravy was putting forward was (strictly) an explanation of growth ('consumer culture' style) in biological terms. My point was not to say that behaviour can't be explained in material terms, because I think that it can. I was just saying that such ('is'/descriptive) explanations are somewhat redundant in a ('ought'/prescriptive/sociocultural) discussion like this one.

Again, like explaining the molecular composition of a pool ball to help someone lining up to strike the 8 ball.

I'm just repeating myself now. I think I may have missed the point of your post sorry.

Griggle · 10-Oct-11, 01:35pm

Jesus, last time I read this thread you were bitching about me talking about qualia and Hard Problems of Consciousness. I come back 3 days later and you've all been sperging like this

You guys would probably love David Boem's books, he treats all thought in society as being a single entity and our individual thoughts as subsets of humanities thought process and prone to being modified by the thought processes of other elements of society.

At the same time he is incredibly down on humanity and believed that our thought processes are fundamentally flawed and part of this problem is to do with the fact the only tool we have to change our thoughts with are other thoughts and so the flaws are often recreated when we try to modify the way we think.

Of course he suffered from chronic depression so that may have covered a large element of his theories but the sperge here about ego really does seem similar in nature.

----------------------------

To bring that in line with this discussion, Claude you are proposing we institute a new mode of thinking where we attempt to make our policies less anthropocentric by no longer including the ego as a factor in our decision making.

Following through on his points, surely such an effort is doomed to failure. Creating a system predicated on ignoring the ego, will end up failing because every human will still have an ego and in the end we will just inject our ego's into the new system of thought and it will end up being anthropocentric as a result.

Wouldn't it be smarter to create a system that is still anthropocentric - just less so than normal or with an additional focus on other elements - so that people can still relate the new mode of thought with their favourite topic of conversation (themselves)? After all none of us actually live on this planet, we all live in a world that exists entirely in our minds.

claude glass · 10-Oct-11, 02:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Jesus, last time I read this thread you were bitching about me talking about qualia and Hard Problems of Consciousness. I come back 3 days later and you've all been sperging like this

You guys would probably love David Boem's books, he treats all thought in society as being a single entity and our individual thoughts as subsets of humanities thought process and prone to being modified by the thought processes of other elements of society.

At the same time he is incredibly down on humanity and believed that our thought processes are fundamentally flawed and part of this problem is to do with the fact the only tool we have to change our thoughts with are other thoughts and so the flaws are often recreated when we try to modify the way we think.

Of course he suffered from chronic depression so that may have covered a large element of his theories but the sperge here about ego really does seem similar in nature.

----------------------------

To bring that in line with this discussion, Claude you are proposing we institute a new mode of thinking where we attempt to make our policies less anthropocentric by no longer including the ego as a factor in our decision making.

Following through on his points, surely such an effort is doomed to failure. Creating a system predicated on ignoring the ego, will end up failing because every human will still have an ego and in the end we will just inject our ego's into the new system of thought and it will end up being anthropocentric as a result.

Wouldn't it be smarter to create a system that is still anthropocentric - just less so than normal or with an additional focus on other elements - so that people can still relate the new mode of thought with their favourite topic of conversation (themselves)? After all none of us actually live on this planet, we all live in a world that exists entirely in our minds.

David Boem sounds like an epistemological idealist. I'm not really down with that.

But I don't think we can make our policies less anthropocentric. We need to lose the anthropenctrism first and then we can do the policy setting, and then we won't have any residual ego to deal with post-policy. Of course then we will all be enlightened beings and can therefore choose whether or not to stay in the cycle of reincarnation. So if we can all get to that point we don't need the planet anymore.

Griggle · 10-Oct-11, 05:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Of course then we will all be enlightened beings and can therefore choose whether or not to stay in the cycle of reincarnation.

That's precisely the problem with your plan.

Any sort of plan of action that involves humans achieving some sort of spiritual enlightenment to achieve any of its goals is really just an exercise in sophistry.

It's like people who say Communism would have worked if people weren't shit ****s that only care about themselves. Everyone knew that generally speaking people are shit ****s that only care about themselves (with the exception of the people that only care about some other group of people/animals/things that they aren't a member of and then they are even more annoying than selfish ****s) so of course the plan was doomed to failure from the start.

Suggesting a plan that relies on elements of human nature being changed without providing any way to change the said elements of human nature is essentially a cop-out. You are basically saying you can't see any good solutions so you are going to propose an even more ludicrous solution than the current ones because if you are going to get it wrong you might as well go the whole hog.

You can't suggest a plan that requires us to all become a Bodhisattva before it can be enacted and not provide some plan for us becoming a Bodhisattva. Large scale plans to change human behaviour are doomed unless we first find some way of changing the elements that motivate individual humans.

claude glass · 10-Oct-11, 05:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

That's precisely the problem with your plan.

Any sort of plan of action that involves humans achieving some sort of spiritual enlightenment to achieve any of its goals is really just an exercise in sophistry.

It's like people who say Communism would have worked if people weren't shit ****s that only care about themselves. Everyone knew that generally speaking people are shit ****s that only care about themselves (with the exception of the people that only care about some other group of people/animals/things that they aren't a member of and then they are even more annoying than selfish ****s) so of course the plan was doomed to failure from the start.

Suggesting a plan that relies on elements of human nature being changed without providing any way to change the said elements of human nature is essentially a cop-out. You are basically saying you can't see any good solutions so you are going to propose an even more ludicrous solution than the current ones because if you are going to get it wrong you might as well go the whole hog.

You can't suggest a plan that requires us to all become a Bodhisattva before it can be enacted and not provide some plan for us becoming a Bodhisattva. Large scale plans to change human behaviour are doomed unless we first find some way of changing the elements that motivate individual humans.

I'm not sure I called it a plan.

DJ Squiggle · 12-Oct-11, 11:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

You can't suggest a plan that requires us to all become a Bodhisattva before it can be enacted and not provide some plan for us becoming a Bodhisattva. Large scale plans to change human behaviour are doomed unless we first find some way of changing the elements that motivate individual humans.

I find in life it is often enough simply to choose a direction then wait and see what happens. Sometimes I get there years later without realising I was even making progress. No game plan other than a goal-in-mind was needed. Other times I find myself off course slightly but at a valid alternative goal anyhow... one that I could not have envisioned.

It reminds me of "The Oracle" in "The Matrix" (probably in some Greek fable originally).

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Do you feel like you're instinctively resistant to this idea mainly because of the 'new age' associations with it?

That would certainly be a valid reluctance. I recall arguing with a dear geek/musician mate about "spiritual". He is more spiritual in practice than many hippies I know but refuses to use the word. Ironically, I think I've stopped using the word also.

The relative degree of Ego ruling each of us is what is important. In a Joseph Campbell book called "Oriental Mythology" he describes how Egyptians used to view Pharoahs as spiritual identities living in human hosts. They were ritually sacrificed. Family/servants would willingly be buried with them. Very ant-like. Then one day a Pharoah suggested they make the sacrifice only a symbollic ritual. Ego then flourished.

The American dream is all about Ego. It is no surprise that only in USA and Australia is the human contribution to Climate Change even being debated. The rest of the educated world accepts it and has moved on. It requires identity with non-ego to bother with battling Climate Change.

Marketing rules! "Freedom". A marketing stroke (pun) of genius to get women smoking...

Quote:

In 1929 there was the much publicised event in the Easter Sunday parade in New York where Great American Tobacco hired several young women to smoke their “torches of freedom” (Lucky Strikes) as they marched down Fifth Avenue protesting against women’s inequality.

A friend just came back and told me billboard advertising is even worse in Australia than USA. Do we really need to see 2 metre breasts selling bras? It is also no conincidence that we sell Bratz and other f*#%!d up dolls in supermarkets here and the USA, and that women need to dress like whores just for equal attention from us guys who are suckers for it.

With all this marketing "freedom", it is also no coincidence that our sense of compassion in Australia and the USA (Detention Centres, Guantanamo Bay) is psychopathic.

Such is the price of Freedom. Ego. Society is going through a teething problem as it figures a new path independent of homogenous sheeplike tradition and culture. I think it is pointless going backwards the way Fred Nile would have us go. The day I overhear discussions like this thread in the supermarket (with less philosophy jargon of course) is the day I will feel USAustralia has matured.

DJ Squiggle · 12-Oct-11, 11:57pm

Media Player

And don't worry about the lyrics of the next one. The imagery says it all...

Media Player

Kid A · 18-Oct-11, 08:39pm

Curtis' doco is on SBS right now. Do yourselves a favour if you haven't seen it.

horst · Yesterday, 10:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

Curtis' doco is on SBS right now. Do yourselves a favour if you haven't seen it.

There were some very interesting historical insights, but trying to directly link Ayn Rand's call to 'let's be selfish; with the ills of our times was pretty unconvincing. I'll watch next week though.

DJ Squiggle +	07-Oct-11, 08:16pm #251 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by twistedbydesign So what happens when people stop being so closely aligned with their ego? Nihilism. Kid A and I have already epxressed a fondness of its expression in Epicureanism, which I only discovered in an essay on Nihilism found while researching for this thread. However, that same essay exposes a more sinister popular contemporary form of Nihilism. Quote: In The Banalization of Nihilism (1992) Karen Carr discusses... “cheerful nihilism”... distinguished by an easy-going acceptance of meaninglessness. Such a development, Carr concludes, is alarming. If we accept that all perspectives are equally non-binding, then intellectual or moral arrogance will determine which perspective has precedence. Worse still, the banalization of nihilism creates an environment where ideas can be imposed forcibly with little resistance, raw power alone determining intellectual and moral hierarchies. It’s a conclusion that dovetails nicely with Nietzsche’s, who pointed out that all interpretations of the world are simply manifestations of will-to-power.
	Be the first<like Quote

DJ Squiggle +	07-Oct-11, 08:23pm #252 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle We still might be agreeing. Quote: Originally Posted by claude glass Yes I think we might be I'm glad you rule out certainty I have been meaning to say that it has been a long time since I've heard/read a forum where I've been able to comfortably agree with opposing viewpoints. Sometimes the way a discussion is conducted becomes more important than the contents.
	claude glass likes this post <like Quote

claude glass +	07-Oct-11, 09:18pm #253 Registered User
Joined Jun '10 Times thanked < 118 Posts 1,471	Quote: Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle Nihilism. Kid A and I have already epxressed a fondness of its expression in Epicureanism, which I only discovered in an essay on Nihilism found while researching for this thread. However, that same essay exposes a more sinister popular contemporary form of Nihilism. Yeah, I'm not down on nihilism at all. I see it as misunderstanding the void, and metaphysically useless.
	Be the first<like Quote

twistedbydesign +	07-Oct-11, 10:10pm #254 grokkin it over
Joined Mar '04 Times thanked < 123 Posts 15,930	Quote: Originally Posted by gravyishot I don't know. Nah, I don't agree with this. People don't dislike others because of brand loyalties. People intrinsically don't like other people, for whatever reason. Cats don't like other cats. Indian Mynas hate other Indian Mynas. You're seeing a violent nature and rationalising the cause. I think violence is actually pretty common across the animal kingdom. 'Whatever reason' is the ego, it's not an intrinsic part of being. What part of you feels threatened by other people enough not to like them? It's the same part that gets anxious about possessions and envies others etc. Quote: The thing is, the growth fetish is exhibited in all kinds of other living beings, even the simplest. The fact that DNA replicates means that it has to consume resources. It is a dumb chemical compound which by its own nature creates further copies of itself. The very nature of replication implies growth. The nature of life to spread and 'the growth fetish' aren't the same thing. Quote: I'd say little changes. So much activity is ego driven, it motivates the majority of human behaviour, without it people would be content with being. And being would become something different altogether. Quote: Originally Posted by gravyishot It's one of those words/phrases that appears way too often. Words are nothing more than general pointers, you shouldn't let your prejudice against any one cloud your judgement on the context in which it's used.
	Be the first<like Quote

twistedbydesign +	07-Oct-11, 10:11pm #255 grokkin it over
Joined Mar '04 Times thanked < 123 Posts 15,930	Quote: Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle Nihilism. Kid A and I have already epxressed a fondness of its expression in Epicureanism, which I only discovered in an essay on Nihilism found while researching for this thread. However, that same essay exposes a more sinister popular contemporary form of Nihilism. No, it's not nihilism. Life doesn't become meaningless without the ego.
	Be the first<like Quote

inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

View AllcloseChatterbox

View AllcloseYour Feed

closeMy Menu

closeStatus

Current Affairs and Politics

The Growth Fetish

Quick Reply

Posting Rules