97776fb9
XPost: alt.atheism, alt.philosophy
From: mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:43:09 -0700 (PDT), tooly wrote:
>On Oct 25, 4:40 am, Sir Frederick Martin
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:38:47 -0700 (PDT), tooly wrote:
>> >On Oct 24, 6:04 am, Sir Frederick Martin
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:32:50 -0700 (PDT), yjk wrote:
>> >> >---said;
>> >> >“Most men are within a finger's breadth of being mad.”
>>
>> >> All 'humans' are insane. It comes with the 'human'
>> >> condition. Evolution made 'us' so, as it was pragmatic.
>> >> Consider qualia(sensor, 'self', and situation) and hubris.
>> >> Madness personified.
>>
>> >define 'mad'?
>>
>> Three different contexts :
>> 1. The folk talk evolved(hunter-gatherer) heritage (anger).
>> 2. The existential philosophical representation taken as 'reality'.
>> 3. The electrical engineer, computer science, functional independent
>> information structure, that used to 'work'.
>>
>> Then there is the changing context, the mystery of the place, the
>> putative miscreant 'gods', and the inherent meaninglessness of the
>> place(with hints of meaning).
>>
>> The OP was of course referring to 1.
>
>I wondered if what was meant was 'hardwire' malfunction [real
>psychosis], or just software programming that has become invalid by
>new world discoveries?
>
>In the second form, it would be that we could be entirely functioning
>PROPERLY, but only evolved in a blindness as to ouir 'real' situation
>[Plato's cave syndrome or some such].
>
>True madness, of the 'brain' kind...well, that's scary [I've seen real
>psychosis and it ain't pretty].
>
>But the 'cognitive dissonance' of new [not so new anymore] knowledge
>could bring to bear to weaker minds [or brains or whatever] to embrace
>very distorted and convuluted ideas in an effort to maintain said 'old
>stories' [as synonymous to that old world programming].
>
>Such 'convolution and distortion' could, perhaps, be seen as a kind of
>madness.
>
>But don't be too hard on the human being, for the 'stress' of
>disallusionment can be a horrible experience. Sir speaks to 'new'
>models that are needed...some new structure [programming?]...but as I
>see it, there is little HOPEFUL in the new knowledge and the self
>perception it allows. The REDUCTIVE nature of that 'new image'
>resolves itself that we no more than microbe in a spoonful of pond
>scum, caught in a tiny niche that has come together to allow us to
>evolve to this state, for a short time, before 'change' absorbs us
>back into the elements.
>
>Any NEW workable model, it seems to me, would have negate the need for
>HOPE, as the old models embraced.
>
>Can that be done? IS that even possible? And from the perspective
>from where I now sit, that appears like zombi-ism of some sort; or
>something 'dead', yet 'alive'. We just can't FEEL anymore.
>
>Or am I wrong? Where am I going wrong in this assessment?
>
>Zombi-ism seems like an even worse madness than the distortions we
>live under now? At least now, we can experience MOMENTS of rapture
>and beauty...however short lived they might be. Total dispassionate
>objectivity...I dunno; what's the purpose of that? Sex? Sensual
>delight? Maybe drugs are the answer? Or brain staples [ha, I saw
>that in a computer game years ago]. Problems with brain staples
>though, is that someone has to be the one doing the stapling.
>
>I think Sir sees himself [or someone like him] as the future staplers
>of the world [neurological manipulators of one kind or another].
>
>
>
Deceit works, even 'self' deceit.
The present deceit or madness seems
hardwired in. Sanity seems more a consensus
thing. It may not be truly available to 'humans',
because of 'our' common constraints. There,
obviously, is more to this situation, than 'meets'
the eye. Thus 'we' stay insane. It helps ward off
many aspects of "zombi-ism". The putative
zombies are insane in different ways.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
