Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Logitech G933 Artemis Spectrum 7.1 Headset Giveaway!

G933 Giveaway     Discussion Thread
Uniqueness & Alienation by Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:14:32 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1531113272985.jpg -(546490B / 533.68KB, 800x988) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 546490
"You -- unique! What thought content is here, what sentence content? None! Whoever wants to deduce a precise thought-content of the Unique as if it were a concept, whoever thinks that with "unique" one has said about you what you are, would show that they believe in phrases, because they don't recognize phrases as phrases, and would also show that they seek specific content in phrases.

You, inconceivable and inexpressible, are the phrase content, the phrase owner, the phrase embodied; you are the who, the one of the phrase. In the unique, science can dissolve into life, in which your this becomes who and this who no longer seeks itself in the word, in the Logos, in the attribute.

The unique in Heaven, which Feuerbach places beside the unique on earth, is the phrase without a phrase-owner. The unique considered here is God. This is the thing that guaranteed that religion would last, that it had the unique at least in thought and as a phrase, that it saw it in Heaven. But the heavenly unique is only a unique in which no one has an interest, whereas Feuerbach instead, whether he likes it or not, is interested in Stirner's unique, because he would have to treat it oddly, if he wanted to chase his own unique from his head. If the heavenly unique were one that existed in its own head rather than in Feuerbach's, it would be difficult to chase this unique from its head."

Feuerbach would separate theology from speculative philosophy, finding in it the key to understanding man's uniqueness from nature even though man is a part of nature, anthropology. For "consciousness is given only in the case of a being to whom his species, his mode of being, is necessarily linked with knowledge. This makes consciousness again into something specifically human, because the animal is not capable of knowing. In being conscious, man knows himself as this conscious being: He is to himself an object of thought. But a being who is an object of his thought; a self-knowing being is also an other-knowing being. Because of this span, knowledge has the character of science: 'Science is the consciousness of species.' "

From the introduction of Fiery Brook, Zawar Hanfi distinguishes animal consciousness from human consciousness: "A caterpillar is confined to the world of a caterpillar; it is a limited being, because given its biological constitution, its instinctual pattern, it cannot transcend the boundaries of its limited world. It cannot make objects foreign to its own world -- and its world is its manifest being -- as the objects of its life-activity. There is no such limitation imposed upon the being of man. The self-expression of his being is neither limited to a particular segment, nor to a particular quality of nature."

"The anthropology of Feuerbach posits a correlation between a being and its object. [...] In this sense, the object is expressive of what a being essentially is; the object to which a subject essentially and necessarily relates himself is nothing except the subject's own, but objective being."

Or as Feuerbach puts it: "man's self-consciousness is his consciousness of the object. One knows the man by the object which reflects his being; the object lets his being appear to you; the object is his manifest being, his true, objective ego. This is true not only of intellectual but also of sensuous [material] objects."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:15:57 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209364 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113357985.jpg -(891970B / 871.06KB, 1340x1340) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209363
Stirner believed that as soon as something is said about you, you are only recognized as that thing. "So if nothing was said about you except for your name, are you recognized as you." Unique simply says that you are yourself, "you have no attribute but with this you are at the same time without determination, vocation, laws, etc."

"But how can you present yourself as who you are, if you don't present yourself? [....]
"You can emerge only if you appear in the flesh."

We can re-present who we are through abstractions, ideas, and things, or through what we produce or create, but ultimately we are realized as unique individuals through our felt bodily experience. I think this is where Marx diverged from Feuerbach, in that Marx eventually believed purely in the practical, the concrete, as an expression of man's being, and if thoughts didn't serve this purpose then what good were they. Idk, my understanding is pretty superficial. Feuerbach on the other other hand believed that anything that is an object of man's consciousness expresses his being.

Through his anthropological axiom he saw the being of God reflects or manifests the being of man. Except as the combination of all human accomplishments and potential in general, not of a "particular individual who is quite obviously far from being perfect, plenitudinous, and totally joyful."

"To be sure," says Feuerbach, "the human individual can, even must, feel and know himself to be limited -- and this is what distinguishes him from the animal -- but he can become conscious of his limits, his finiteness, only because he can make the perfection and infinity of his species the object either of his feeling, conscience, or thought."

"The history of religion is the history of the objectifications or projections of man's being into a shifting pattern of superhuman and supernatural powers." Its a way for man to analyze or identify aspects of theirself by applying it to another being. If this is the hidden nature of religion then this content taken back as humanity's own. What is found in the essence and consciousness of religion is there in the being of man.

As Feuerbach sees it, the reality of the age lies in the fact that "religion and Church have been replaced by politics, the heaven by the earth, prayer by work, hell by material need, and the Christian by man." Humanity becomes the center of their world. So then each individual is the center of their own world.

Meanwhile, what is outside of you, whatever it may be, private property, etc. may be yours, but is still itself its own at the same time, it has its own existence; it is "the unique", the same as you.
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:17:47 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209365 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113467985.jpg -(1042957B / 1018.51KB, 1340x1340) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209364
Again from Stirner's Critics:
"In commercial and personal relationships, your interest comes first, and all sacrifices happen only to benefit this interest of yours, while on the contrary, in the religious relationship, the religious interest of the absolute or of the spirit, i.e., the interest alien to you, comes first, and your interests should be sacrificed to this alien interest."

The shaming of self-interest and advoacy of selflessness is expressed in religion as the claim that all human beings are sinners.

"The human being, which our saints agonize so much to recognize, insofar as they always preach that one should recognize the human being in the human being, gets recognized completely and actually only when it is recognized as the inhuman monster. If it is recognized as such, all religious or "human" impositions cease, and the domination of the good, the hierarchy, comes to an end, because the unique, the altogether common human being (not Feuerbach's virtuous "common man"), is at the same time the complete human being. "

The idea here is to be a complete human being for yourself. Perheps letting go of our own critical insights against our self. As Bruce Lee in Striking Thoughts under "truth" phases it:
>“’What is’ is more important than ‘what should be.’ Too many people are looking at ‘what is’ from a position of thinking ‘what should be’.”
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:18:44 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209366 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113524985.jpg -(117144B / 114.40KB, 900x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209365
Only pious people, sacred socialists, etc., "saints" of every kind with their limiting ideas of correct action and discourse, of "thou shalt" rather than "I will", prevent the human being from being recognized and appreciated in the human being. "They alone paralyze pure human intercourse. They have introduced a sacred intercourse, and where possible they would like to make it the Holy of Holies. "

This idea could be expanded to include the social expectations of how people should present themselves which has been diluted by social media and popular obsessions with appearing like impossible photoshopped models or strong-armed alphas, or whatever appearance the individual aspires to present themselves to others as. Why isn't it popular to appear as you are in that given moment instead of putting on makeup or a face for the camera?
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:19:38 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209367 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113578985.jpg -(1780288B / 1.70MB, 1340x1895) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209366
The essense of man, what they truly and really are, is at odds with man's existence, their actual mode of being. In the subjective human world we have created, in the context of the alientation of labor, amidst the objective world of nature that we are also a part of. Marx's early analysis in "Parisian Manuscripts" is again summarized by Zawar Hanfi:

"the history of man is the history of alienation from his own essence, culminating in capitalist society as the system of alienation par excellence. It is within the anthropological perspective that Marx interprets communism as the conscious restoration of man to himself, and sees in it the solution to the riddle of history." Whether communism actually is the answer or not Marx's belief in contradictions between the unique self and the self serving alien interests outside of one's own self-interest.

Mind and body shouldn't be a dichotomy. Ecopsychology explores the strict expectations of our society and the seperateness of our bodily felt experience from our abstraction of reality in our thoughts, our minds, of our humanity seperated from nature.

but "Marx abandons this anthropological standpoint -- and with this the whole of Feuerbachian humanism and naturalism -- in his Theses on Beuerbach and the German Ideology:
The chief defect of all previous materialism is that hte object, actuality, sensuousness is conceived only in the form of the object or contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in opposition to materialism, the active side was developed by idealism -- but only abstractly since idealism naturally does not know actual, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects actually different from thought objects: but he does not comprehend human activity itself as objective."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:20:48 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209368 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113648985.jpg -(182207B / 177.94KB, 899x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209367
"This is reminescent of labor as the process of man's self-creation, involving at the same time the 'practical creation of an objective world.' As in the Parisian Manuscripts, so also in the first Thesis 'the active side' is associated with the idealist philosohpy of Hegel. The Hegelian subject, even if in an abstract way, is actively involved in the production of its content, its objectifications. In other words, its relationship to its objectifications, the forms into which it alienates itself, is not contemplative, but practical, for only thus can it progressively supersede its self-alienation. The Hegelian subject is the activity of returning to itself from the object which it actively posits. The mediating activity is unknown to all materialism including that of Feuerbach. It does not realize that the object is essentially sensuous human activity in so far as it is posited as such by human labor, the activity of producing human objects. Hence, Feuerbach 'does not comprehend human activity itself as objective.'

It would seem that Marx has not yet abandoned the framwork of the Parisian Manuscripts, for what we have in the first Thesis is a more direct and definitive version of what he had already said. The sixth Thesis, however, makes it quite clear that Marx has completely abandoned the anthropological context of his concept of labor; the context is no socio-historical. Rejecting the idea of the essence of man, Marx relegates it to a social category:

>'But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its actuality it is the ensemble of social relationships.'

These social relationships do not have a fixed form; they are structured within a totality which is itself the result of its socio-historical process."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:21:29 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209369 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113689985.jpg -(1547170B / 1.48MB, 1340x1340) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209368
A recent field of study and practice named Ecopsychology uses many means to understand and point towards a solution to humanity's alienation. The author proposes the hermeneutical discourse as a general route out of objectivism by participating more intimately or concretely in one's subject matter and thereby discover meanings, develop understandings, or make interpretations not accessible to the remote observer.

"Anthropologist Stanley Diamond commented that his own discipline has grown popular precisely because civilization has exacted such an acute loss in our understanding of ourselves as human beings. Yet, anthropology is in the main a 'narrow discipline with mechanical techniques and trivial goals' that represses its own urgent and central question, namely, 'what part of our humanity have we lost and how and in what form we may regain it.' [...]

Nietzche wrote of how Western thinkers before him 'despised the body: they lefit it of the account: more, they treated is an an enemy.' Plato dumped the body for suprasensuous ideas. Later, the erotic body was seen as the Devil itself, the very site of corruption. During the witch trials, the witch 'had her sensualism burned out of her.' The body in general, in general, was resentated and feared because it linked us to a fallen, beastly nature; imprisoned us in flesh. The Cartesian mechanizing of the body and disembodying of the soul can in retrospect be understood as an attempt to resolve this terrible dilemma. Today the dominant model of the body is still a scientific one: a physiological system with no significant relations to the world; a material container for the mind (the latter of which can potentially be made immortal, some claim, by being 'downloaded' into machines); a corpse even."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:22:15 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209370 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113735985.jpg -(76403B / 74.61KB, 590x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209369
Feuerbach broke with this philosophical tradition, viewing the whole man as both mind and body, a unity of reason and sensuousness. Only as a sensuous being does man relate himself to real concerete being both actively and passively.

"Think as one who exists, as one who is in the world and is part of the world, not as one in the vacuum of abstraction, not as a solitary monad, not as an absolute monarch, not as an unconcerned, extra-worldly God; only then can you be sure that being and thought are united in all your thinking." Man as the unity of thought and being is both subject and object; as such, he is necessarily referred to other subjects and objects existing apart from himself. To be is to bei ntogetherness with others. The being of man -- the unity of thought and being -- is communal being. Thus, man can think, feel, and act only because his subjectivity is grounded in a commonly shared objectivity. Feuerbach says: "You think only because your thoughts themselves can be thought, and they are true only if they pass the test of objectivity; that is, when someone else, to whom they are given as objects, acknowledges them as such. You see because you are yourself a visible being. Only to an open mind does the world stand open, and the openings of the mind are only the senses."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:23:02 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209371 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113782985.jpg -(411701B / 402.05KB, 480x639) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209370
So one task to overcome alienation is to reclaim a body that walks on, and is nourished by, the living Earth. Freud called the part of our personally that cooresponded to nature the "id". Freud wrote: "we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitation ... It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but is has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of instinctual needs." The way Freud saw it, our nature (our essence) must be either controlled or broken.

Humanistic psychology has turned away from Freud's characterization of our nature and understands our body as intelligent with a precisely attuned intentional relationship with the "external" world, as we experience it from within. When we're hungry, we go eat. "Such cases of meaningful somatic direction, although quite ismple, are no different in principle from instances of more complex living. [...] The body is thus more truly a finely ordered living responsiveness, always seeking some sort of symbolic completion for its needs or intentions, whether the 'hunger' be physical, social, emotional, developmental, intellectual, sexual, spiritual, aesthetic, or whatever."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:23:52 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209372 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113832985.jpg -(735379B / 718.14KB, 777x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209371
The dominant assumption of relativism (that there is no nature, no truth not programmed into us by culture) doesn't favor the view that all meaning is grounded in the life process and that we feel in our bodies what is for or against this process. "If we have no nature, no organic ties, then the meaning of life is arbitrary, which is to say that it has no meaning at all (the nihilistic view). Just so, the 'post-modern body' has been described as a 'de-natured' body or a 'dis-embodied' body."

Michael Foucault views the body as a surface that history imprints itself. That our experienceing is wholly determined by the symbolic order, which is itself limited to cultural-historical-linguistic forms, our thoughtful abstractions of reality, or subjective human worlds within the objective natural world. What they do not allow for and which Feuerbach advocates is the synthesis of mind and body, for how symbolic forms and experiencing interact in a life process.
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:24:41 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209373 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113881985.jpg -(1902633B / 1.81MB, 1600x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209372
"Our bodily felt intentions (as Merleau-Ponty wrote) are the threasd that connect us to the world. Assigning intentionality to the body itself thus incarnates and enworlds the mind, so that it is no longer tucked away up in the skull. Hence, body and world are originally together, and are only isolated -- turned into cadaver and object -- in an act of reflective abstraction. As we live them, in short, what differentiates body and world ' is not a frontier, but a contact surface.' "

Marx used the notion of 'commodity fetishism' to describe the capitalist condition of valuing dead things (commodities) over devalued & deprioritized living things (humans and nature). Capitalism is an imposition of a way of life upon people who would otherwise live differently. In Stirner's words, serving an alien interest instead of one's self-interest. Capitalism too is the holiest of holies. The domination of man involves the domination of nature, within and outside of man.
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:25:41 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209374 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531113941985.jpg -(959198B / 936.72KB, 1064x716) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209373
>>209373
Hence:
"The great menance of capitalism, the one to which the entire ecology movement is responsive, is that all of nature itself will come under the sway of the commodity and be violated. ... as the forest becomes a field which becomes a lawn which becomes Astroturf, so is the human organism converted into a zone of commodification. ... In the emergence of the narcissistic character as the central figure of late capitalism, we see this movement appear in the self."

No wonder then to apply for jobs you have to sell yourself like a product or to belong to certain social circles people feel the need to appear certain ways on social media. The violation of nature now shows up in us as the universalizing of pathological narcissism.

"at the core of the classic narcissist is an utterly shame-bound person whose early needs were severely violated and who consequently has only an abysmal sense of self. Narcissists are wounded to such an extent that they have almost no sense of their own insides, their own bodily felt living. They identify isntead with grand self-images that act in fantasy to compensate for their terrible sense of inadequacy." (But according to what standards do they feel inadequate?) "They spend their entire lives propping up these images and insisting brittlely that others be their loving mirrors. the cult of the celebritity -- in wihch we adore and identify with images of the rich, the powerful, and the beautiful, found in those glossy magazines at the supermarket checkout -- likewise betrays a pervasive sense of worthlessness in our society. On the whole, however, this conditin is not a problem for the running of a capitalist society, for feelingless, hungry narcissists are in many ways perfectly adapted, if not tailor-made, for it. Having had their own nature violated, and lacking much grasp of their inner motivations, narcissists consume endlessly in a quest for lost selfhood, and, seeking self-esteem through productivity, performance, ladder-climbing, and hollow expressions of brute power, are all too prepared to participate in the technological ruination of nature."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:26:43 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209375 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114003985.jpg -(585811B / 572.08KB, 1064x716) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209374
Nihilism too is prevalent as a collective and archetypal madness where we ourselves feel empty, cut-off, homeless, soulless; many of us frantically trying to "be" somebody.
https://youtu.be/zDMtaIcrfQ0 Saul Williams - List Of Demands(Reparations)

"Nihilism is a frustrating cultural condition; it engenders rage and (self-)destruction (i.e. an-nihil-ation). The more our living and feelings are blocked, the more we are estranged from our own bodily-felt nature, the more does the aggression within the life force press up against this repression; hence 'adjustment in our time involves an element of resentment and suppressed fury.' As many have noted, violence often originates in repressed aggression combined with an inner sense of shame or impotence. That is, acts of rageful violence can be seen, in part, as desperate attempts to assert one's existence or personhood, so as to defend onself against the painful feeling that one is a nothing or a nobody. There is, furthermore, no shortage of literature describing much of the male-driven mistreatment of the earth as an act of blind hostility, in which nature, denuded of meaning to the status of brute matter, becomes the target for guilt-free or morally sanctioned acts of violence. Barry Lopez, for example, writes that the historical slaughter of wolves in North America is rooted in 'theriophobia,' a fear of the beast (within). All that has become violent, irrational, insatiable, and disinhibited within humans is disowned from awareness and then projected onto animals who do not themselves 'rape, murder, and pillage.' This projection, notes Lopez, has stuck particularly well to wolves, who when targeted for annihilation are therefore asked to pay the price (as are all dogs who get kicked) for the distortion and repression of life among men."

Reminescent of the movie the Isle of Dogs in which the problems of society, the dishonor of the ruling elite and the domination of them over society, is projected onto dogs who are banished to the trash island in which many sorts of disaster has struck. Dammmnnn you cats! (jk, cats are cool too).
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:27:35 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209376 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114055985.jpg -(139543B / 136.27KB, 640x511) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209375
"Konrad Stettbacher calls our feelings 'the guardians of life.' Rinzler likewise remakrs that 'the only safety and protection we can ever know is in our profound connectedness with our sensory selves, as part of the living earth, warning us of our danger.' As Audre Lorde has noted, however: "Within structures defined by profit, by linear power, by institutional de-humanization, our feelings were not meant to survive.' And as Heidegger suggested, this means that our time is 'no longer able to experience its own destitution.' One final way to view the domination of nature, then, is simply as a 'cruelty sanctioned by tradition.' wherein we do not feel the impact of our violent actions. The narcissist is just unable to recognize the self or personhood of others, and thus to value and care for life."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:28:30 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209377 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114110985.jpg -(253977B / 248.02KB, 1200x972) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209376
So what is to be done? Young Marx invisioned "Communism as [a] positive overcoming of private property as human self-alienation, and thus as the actual appropriation of the human essence through and for man; therefore, as the complete and conscious restoration of man to himself within the total wealth of previous development, the restoration of man as a social, that is, human being. This communism as completed naturalism is humanism, as completed humanism it is naturalism. It is the genuine resolution of the antagonism between man and nature and between man and man; it is the true resolution of the conflict between existence and essence, objectification and self-affirmation, freedom and necessity, individual and species. It is the riddle of history solved and knows itself as this solution."

Feuerbach insists man take back into himself all the richness of content -- infinity and universality -- he has put into God or into his speculative metamorphoses, to take back speculative philosophy's rational-conceptual form of the Divine Being of theology, which is pieces of humanity's projection of God(s). "The practical-emancipatory value of this supersession of man's self-alienation would be his elevation from a morally and socio-politically degraded, impoverished, unfree being into a free and dignified being." Which in other words is exactly what Ecopsychology's focus on bodily-felt experience proposes. Feuerbach saught to restore the independence of the real with sensuousness.
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:29:16 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209378 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114156985.jpg -(204918B / 200.12KB, 900x608) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209377
"Taken in its reality or regarded as real, the real is the object of the senses--the sensuous. Truth, reality, sensuousness are one and the same thing. Only a sensuous being is a true and real being. Only through the senses is an object given in the true sense, not through thought for itself. The object given by and identical with ideation is merely thought." From the very outset the subject of Feuerbach is filled with the world, just as the world in its turn is the world of and for the subject.

Ecopsychology doesn't stop at the individual, total liberation depends on humanity and nature's liberation. Freud declared that the "programme of becoming happy ... cannot be fulfilled" because in exchange for the security of civilization we pay the price of "a loss of happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt." So pharmaceutical companies sell us the antidepressants that gets us back to work and the ecological crisis continues.
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:30:01 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209379 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114201985.jpg -(164213B / 160.36KB, 900x610) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209378
"To behave controary to the rigidly prescribed patterns that keep the social machinery running is to risk being called 'nuts' or being instituinalized for 'losing control' of oneself. The effect is to keep spontaneity in check and our problem all 'inside.' It is shameful to be 'weird' or different from the norm. There is an unwritten law, furthermore, which says that strong emotions, particularly distressful ones, should not be expressed; to be emotional is to be 'weak,' 'hysterical,' or 'out of control.' The control of emotion, by contrast, is associated with people in positions of higher status and power, such as corporation heads (or psychiatrists). What is diagnosed as madness, moreover, is often more truthfully an attempt at healing, mispercieved because of its high emotionality and seemingly bizarre nature. Drawing on the work of Aihwa Ong, Ray Rogers has discussed the phenomenon of Malay factory women experiencing hantu spirit possessions, which results in epidemics of fits and 'fugue states,' as they move from a peasant culture to the culture of industrial factories. As Rogers observes, 'those who operate the factories characterize these fits in terms of hysteria, thereby pathologizing and individualizing these conditions, and denying them their social significance.' [...]

To put it plainly, then, the progress of technology leads not to the fulfillment of our nature but to a natural rebellion that the ruling powers of our scoiety must constantly turn to advantage, administer, or out-maneuver."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:30:55 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209380 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114255985.jpg -(241446B / 235.79KB, 900x599) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209379
Ecopsychology then suggests overcoming technologies' current resourcist ontology and putting it back where it belongs: in the artful service of life. Most importantly to counter modern technology means refusing to live for an abstract future, whatever that may be, and so recover our lives in the concrete present. "To make contact with present reality, however, is also to confront the painful feelings that are masked or numbed-out by our technological mode of living. So learning to collectively bear, find meaning in, and move through the suffering we inevitably uncover in the course of counterpractise is essential. That could be group therapy, carthatic events like shows or protests, to take action, to attend carefully to relationships, symbolic rites of passage through different stages of our lives, and honor the growth or sacred unfolding of things, reconnecting with nature outside (the world) and inside (our self), whatever works and seems right.

"The healing that goes on in a psychotherapist's office involves contacting those painful feelings we have previously been unable to bear, but which in a more supportive context can now be awarely experienced and completed. The same principle applies in all healing work: that the ground for the work -- inner, interpersonal, physical, moral, conceptual, spiritual, ecological -- must be strong enough so that we can maintain a sufficient distance from our unpleasant feelings to both tolerate and move through them. For the most part, our society lacks such contexts; it offers cotton candy and pills instead. It is thus no wonder that we have become apathetic, for apathy (a-pathos) is precisely an insensibility to suffering. I suggest, in short, that we are just not going to be able to get it together, or do the radical work, unless we enjoy better self-knowledge--and that this implies creating loving conditions under which we can feel, and so discover the meaning of, our pain and suffering. [...]
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:31:56 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209381 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114316985.png -(2060659B / 1.97MB, 1173x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209380
When the pain of life is too great to bear, we use our aggression against it. all repression, for example, is a life-diminishing act of aggression against our natural selves. Drugs and alcohol desensitize or temporarily soothe us. And so on. The strategy of violence does not satisfy us precisely because it is not a positive search for fulfillment but a last-ditch quest for release from pain. The "fateful question" for our times is thus not, as Fred held, whether the instinct for life can win out over the instinct for death (the latter of is an erroneous construction), but whether or not we will choose to find collective ways to bear our pain and suffering, to strengthen ourselves, so that we can then stop negating life and instead get back to it. In the hope that we will, and in the face of all the evidence that we won't, I offer the following remarks.

To stay above the healing threshold we need a context for containing our pain that is larger or stronger than the pain itself. Given the enormity of our pain, I suggest that our society needs very strong frameworks indeed. The strongest contexts, moreover, will in some sense always be spiritual. The recovery movement involves much spiritual practice (e.g. twelve-step programs) exactly because this puts people's pain into a more tolerable context. As the Gestaltist James Kepner also comments, the 'reality of trauma and abuse, with its horror, hideousness, and inexplicable quality, simply cannot be held and made sense of within the individual person.' Thus, ' most survivors find some compelling need to develop a transcendent spiritual or philosophical framework.' This comes as no surprise, as religous symbols have traditionally helped people unerstand the cosmos in a way that makes their pain endurable. 'As a religous problem,' says Clifford Geertz, 'the problem of suffering is, paradoxically, not how to avoid suffering but how to suffer, how to make of physical pain, personal loss, worldly defeat, or the helpless contemplation of others' agony something bearable, supportable -- something, as we say, sufferable.' "
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:32:38 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209382 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114358985.jpg -(188853B / 184.43KB, 640x615) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209381
Another suggestion is how to bear the feeling of shame. "When workaholics stop working, for example, they often feel engulfed by a sense of worthlessness, and so dive once again into further work. The more we matter-of-factly acknowledge the feeling of shame, however, and so give up the shameful feeling of having to run from it, the more compassionate will we become as a society. This is because shame is the emotion of rejection and isolation; to respectfully listen to shame is to hear a cry for love and community, for acknowledgment of both the goodness and fullness of our nature."

Our historical economic development writes Kovel, "was won through the destruction of community. ... From its basis and origin in the differentiated unity of primitive society, subjectivity has undergone a 'progressive' atomization and conflictual intensification with the intrusion first of the state, then of the capitalist market, into the organic relationship between self, others, and nature. This results in the isolated, deeply probelmatic subject of today."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:33:35 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209383 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114415985.jpg -(871803B / 851.37KB, 842x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209382
"As a psychotherapist I know that all people need to love and be loved, that they all suffer in some way or other, and that they are all basically good. As an ecopsychologist, I can now say with equal confidence that all people need to experience themselves as a part of the natural world, need to understand their own naturalness. The more we can, as ecopsychologists, build our alternative vision of humans and nature, the bolder we will become in encouraging others to speak out for a society that is consistent with this vision. Indeed, the promise of ecopsychology is to be a force for the therapeutic, recollective, and critical work that will help to make such a society a reality."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:34:41 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114481985.jpg -(79917B / 78.04KB, 600x771) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209383
“Understanding comes about through feeling, from moment to moment in the mirror of relationship.”
-- Bruce Lee
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:36:23 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209385 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114583985.jpg -(1339941B / 1.28MB, 1340x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209384
"Anyone caught in self-defeating patterns, malfunctioning character structures, pathological repetitions, and so forth, feels these as painful. ... it is the very living of the organism not able to proceed. Right in the middle of how pathological patterns are experienced ... are the felt life-forces tending toward resolution."
-- Eugene Gendlin
>>
Albert Nicklebanks - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:39:20 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209386 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209366
>> Why isn't it popular to appear as you are in that given moment instead of putting on makeup or a face for the camera?
Because one stands to gain something by those interactions. If people valued others equally when they were 'themselves' vs when they were living to the expectations of others, you might rightly ask this question, but knowing that there is a direct, concrete value to behaving in accordance with the group, the answer is clear: self-interest.

That was the only actual question I could detect in this otherwise formidable wall of tl,dr. One thing that stuck out to me
>> Just so, the 'post-modern body' has been described as a 'de-natured' body or a 'dis-embodied' body."
You're equivocating post-modernism with nihilism, which is both an old saw and an obvious error that I would think you would know better than considering how learned the rest of your treatment was. Post-modernism asserts that there is no objectively verifiable meaning, not that there isn't one at all. Your ecopsychological unification of embodiedness and mind is just as valid, from a post-modern perspective, as Cartesian dualism, positivisitic materialism, or Berkleyan idealism.

Do you have another specific point or argument you are trying to make or get your readers to accept, or is this just a static analysis?
>>
Albert Nicklebanks - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:40:53 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209387 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209386
Oh god you weren't even half done when I started writing that....ok I'm out, this is way too much text m8.
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:43:16 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209388 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531114996985.jpg -(362766B / 354.26KB, 1364x2048) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
___Sources___
Critics of Stirner's works: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/stirner/stirnerscritics.html
The Fiery Brook by Ludwig Feuerbach
Radical Ecopsychology by Andy Fisher
Striking Thoughts by Bruce Lee

"The infant is an inherently loving being and its most basic need is for his love to be unconditionally received. The infant also needs to know that he is unreservedly loved purely for himself, without provisos or stipulations. This echoes Lake's concept of the basic needs of being: recognition, acknowledgement, and unconditional acceptance. As we have seen, however, the relational field that the infant finds itself in is ambiguous and insonstant. Inevitably the infant will, at times, feel unseen or unaccepted. The experience of relational ambiguity, and the polarized feelings tones that arise with it, are the source of what Fairbairn called primary trauma."
Being and Becoming by Franklyn Sills

People Under the Stairs - Acid Raindrops https://youtu.be/1dr1kQDGgRk
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:54:05 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209389 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531115645985.jpg -(213520B / 208.52KB, 750x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209387 ahha, its cool. Turned into quite alot of text ya.
>but knowing that there is a direct, concrete value to behaving in accordance with the group, the answer is clear: self-interest.
Yeah, but it shouldn't be that way. How someone appears or how they re-present themselves in the different media forms or in person shouldn't be more important than how they actually are. Good point tho.

>Do you have another specific point or argument you are trying to make or get your readers to accept, or is this just a static analysis?
Nah, just exploring some author's works, trying to connect them together, mainly Stirner, Feuerbach, Marx, and Fisher: the author of this Radical Ecopsychology book, while writing a few of my own thoughts, and summarizing other passages. The post-modernism summary was from Fisher, perhaps that's from post-modern thinkers he's encountered. My understanding is sorta how you laid it out, that post-modernism takes many ideas without wholly believing in them.

>our ecopsychological unification of embodiedness and mind is just as valid, from a post-modern perspective, as Cartesian dualism, positivisitic materialism, or Berkleyan idealism.
Good to know. I really gotta brush up on those terms.

The basis of all of it is the mind & body divide and the cause and solution to alienation.
>>
Albert Nicklebanks - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 02:09:54 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209390 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209389
That's cool dude, I enjoyed up to the point I read. Was this a paper for a class or something? I think around 3k words is pretty much as far as most people are willing to drill down on an image board.

>>Yeah, but it shouldn't be that way.
Absolutely. I would suggest that as long as people's labor is differentially valued, there will always be an incentive to appear as something you are not. So, like you pretty much suggest throughout, capitalism is inherently incompatible with the authentic expression of the self. Even with it absent, it would take a long time to recondition authenticity into humanity.

>> Cartesian dualism, positivisitic materialism, or Berkleyan idealism.
>>brush up on those terms.
You more or less laid out those positions in your text, even if you aren't familiar with those specific terms. Positivism is just a flavor of monistic materialism that states that only material things exist, mental phenomena aren't genuine phenomena but merely epiphenomenal (epistemic materialism), and that we should only speak about things which we can prove exist (positivism.) Basically the hard-boiled philosophical empiricism that dominates the physical sciences.

Berkleyan idealism is really just the OG idealism; a monistic stance that posits that the only thing which exists is mental content, of which the appearance of physicality is a sub-species.

>>The basis of all of it is the mind & body divide and the cause and solution to alienation.
This might tickle your noodle a bit. Consider how humans are the only part of the universe (as far as we know) which is so vexed with this quality of simultaneously having an infinite inner interiority, while at the same time being aware of their extremely finite animal nature. However, because of our naivete, we hardly ever perceive what parts of reality are our mental creations, and what parts are the true underlying actuality. Additionally, we create technological artifacts in order to modify the world to our desires. Our desires match our mental representations, which our physical reality does or doesn't to lesser or greater degrees; thus by using our technology, over time we modify the physical reality to match our mental models, even unwittingly.

Thus to be a human is to be a kind of singularity between the ideal and the actual, and by the process of humans living our lives, we continually dissolve the barrier between the two. As many of our technological projects seek to further dissolve the barrier between the subject and object, perceived and perceiver, the mind and the machine, whether of the body or of a truly mechanical nature, over time, the net effect of the existence of humanity is to dissolve the very distinction it itself created by 'biting the apple' so to speak and recognizing itself as distinct from its environment, its interiority as distinct from the world around it.

So in short, I wouldn't worry. The very nature of evolution is closing up the wound you have identified, and it's doing it through you.
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 03:23:49 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209391 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531121029985.jpg -(676550B / 660.69KB, 1200x795) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209390 Yes, appreciate you elaborating.
>Our desires match our mental representations, which our physical reality does or doesn't to lesser or greater degrees; thus by using our technology, over time we modify the physical reality to match our mental models, even unwittingly.
maybe our perspective of reality changes by our attention, such as how people with really different ways of living experience the same thing and attribute really different meaning to it. Such as Europeans & First Nations people back in the colonial era. The different meanings are mental models? A bit of the Ecopsychology part was about being attentive to one's body and emotions, (an aspect of our nature -- or id) as well as a heightened state of awareness with more atuned senses. I think I know what you're saying tho, our use of technology has created the metropolis. That's why surregional exploration or the derive is so appealing because of interpreting the city in an unique light, perhaps paying attention to subtle geography, architecture, graffiti, aesthetics, people, animals, internal feelings, thoughts, etc.

>As many of our technological projects seek to further dissolve the barrier between the subject and object, perceived and perceiver, the mind and the machine,
That's certainly interesting, and seems to be in the long-run possible if civilization doesn't collapse before then. The reciprocal relationship of being perceived and perceiving continuously happens right now between living life.
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 03:39:06 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209392 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531121946985.webm [mp4] -(2365637B / 2.26MB, 640x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209391
> whether of the body or of a truly mechanical nature,
Reminds me of that BSG quote: https://youtu.be/y0lVocpwXQg "I don't want to be human . . ."
>>
Hedda Turveycocke - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 03:53:51 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209393 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531122831985.jpg -(931600B / 909.77KB, 1064x716) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209390
>over time, the net effect of the existence of humanity is to dissolve the very distinction it itself created by 'biting the apple' so to speak and recognizing itself as distinct from its environment, its interiority as distinct from the world around it.
Sounds quite a transcendence of human nature. Despite an entirely distinct interiority, wouldn't humanity still be beholden to the constraints of their environment?

The comparison of mental creations with underlying actuality reminds me of the comparison by Feuerbach & Marx between essence (what one truly and really is -- the unique) at odds with existence (one's actual mode of being -- an alien interest).

Oh yeah I forgot to comment that
>So, like you pretty much suggest throughout, capitalism is inherently incompatible with the authentic expression of the self. Even with it absent, it would take a long time to recondition authenticity into humanity.
dammnnnn, you summed those points up pretty succinctly. Awesome
>>
Albert Nicklebanks - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 19:14:39 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209394 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209393
I don't wanna hijack your thread by moving it to discuss what I was saying, I just wanted to give you something to mull over that was somewhat related to what you were saying, but I'll respond to your points as I think they're relevant to the general topic of developing a forward thinking paradigm for philosophy and human society.

>>Sounds quite a transcendence of human nature.
That's one possible interpretation. However, one thing I would ask, is human nature specific or unique to homo sapiens? Did australopithecus, even at a reduced level, not participate in what we think of as 'human nature' i.e. to be both sentient and sapient, self aware, yet still an animal? So I think it's reasonable to think that as we evolve, what we evolve into will still be a 'human being' in the original sense of that term, a sapient entity that feels, thinks, yet exists materially, even if they aren't members of the specific species homo s. sapiens.

>wouldn't humanity still be beholden to the constraints of their environment?
Exactly. Technology enables us to feel and be responsive to the constraints of the environment in ways that used to be impossible. I know it seems grim right now, but you have to look at the bigger picture.

Formerly, because of the dichotomy between the self and the environment human consciousness created by being self aware, we saw the environment as separate from ourselves and thus initially believed crazy things like we had the unlimited right to subjugate and control it. As we change the environment more drastically, we begin to directly feel the consequences on the biosphere after a very short time (for example, anthropogenic climate change.) In short order (on a cosmic timescale anyway) we begin the mentally integrate the components of the world system into our mental models. The dissolution of the barrier between subject and object, self and environment, is a two-way street. We're the first part of the biosphere that is aware of the biosphere and is able to adapt to it, and it to us. Consider how early life destroyed the ecosystem many times over through its unawareness of the constraints of the environment (for example, like when oxygen generating life nearly destroyed all life because DNA had not yet adapted to prevent oxidization.) We're the first bit that can observe the connection between our actions and our environment, so consciousness' effort, in a way, dissolves the distinction it created by initially putting 'self' and 'other' in separate categories. Humanity no longer rules the environment, it becomes one with it, and it with us.

So, it is and isn't transcendence. Like the proverb says, 'Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.'

Anyway, all good stuff. So, what do you think the most prosaic method of introducing ecospsychological insights to the society at large?
>>
Barnaby Heshfare - Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:00:30 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209396 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531360830421.jpg -(2007013B / 1.91MB, 1500x2121) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209394
Its cool, as if i (or anyone) possess this thread anyway.

>However, one thing I would ask, is human nature specific or unique to homo sapiens?
Good point. I don't know at what point someone would consider human nature to be absent, or for that matter, present in earlier homo species. Are you suggesting biological evolution and/or a technologically augmented human?

>because of the dichotomy between the self and the environment human consciousness created by being self aware, we saw the environment as separate from ourselves and thus initially believed crazy things like we had the unlimited right to subjugate and control it.
If you study early human history and pre-history or even look at existing human society's right now that are considered primitive from our late-modern perspective, many of those societies don't view the world as something to control with the right to subjugate it. Their mythologies and belief systems were often about being a part of the sum total world, not as some separate objective species apart from it.

Often the different societies' belief systems used the concepts of God(s) to characterize unexplainable phenomenon and posit their place in the world. Such as Coyote, the trickster, who figures predominantly in many First Nations tribes throughout North America. He is unpredictable and ambivalent, representing both good and bad, animals, humans, and gods, a characteristic of all these beings. "By testing and pushing the limits of behavior, he demonstrates and reinforces concepts of harmony and order for the Navajo."

In the Navajo's creation myth Coyote was responsible for their great flood, from pieces of his fur are made all coyotes, different colors for the four different directions, sometimes he's associated with meanness and uncontrollable sexual passion. He sanctifies Sun, Moon, corn and plants, insists on the mountains being given life, he gives names to Talking God and Calling God, two major Navajo deities, "and in his capacity as a wise philosopher is responsible for the ordering of what are now regarded by Navajos as proper and necessary life patterns, [...] such as crop growing[.]" So despite Coyote's trickster characteristics, the impression in the Navajo creation myths is much more of the Cultural Hero than the Trickster.
http://www3.brandonu.ca/cjns/7.2/cooper.pdf COYOTE IN NAVAJO RELIGION AND COSMOLOGY

The belief of having the right to subjugate nature often emerged with civilizations, monotheism, and the state, so its not necessarily a western attitude.

> The dissolution of the barrier between subject and object, self and environment, is a two-way street. We're the first part of the biosphere that is aware of the biosphere and is able to adapt to it, and it to us.
This is anecdotal, and could be my imagination, but sometimes I've gotten that impression during hallucinogenic experiences.

>Consider how early life destroyed the ecosystem many times over through its unawareness of the constraints of the environment (for example, like when oxygen generating life nearly destroyed all life because DNA had not yet adapted to prevent oxidization.)
Or animals overeating plant life in an area.

>Humanity no longer rules the environment, it becomes one with it, and it with us.
Wont there always be a divide of self though? The physical separation of our skin from the environment and nothing more. Our unity with the world that we are a part of would then be a conceptual interconnectedness, a feeling of being a part of something more than our self. But as Stirner had put it, also a realization of our self as a unique object that may appear to possess other objects that are actually unique and their own.

Joseph Campbell, who studied myths, has some interesting insights about "Human Empathy & Interconnectedness" https://youtu.be/_CGb-p_0gvY

It is certainly a problem to see the environment as separate from ourselves and not something that as its affected, affects us, reciprocally. This theoretically comes from "this human-centered -- or 'anthropocentric' -- reduction of the being of nature to raw, moldable, inferior stuff that exists as if only to be on-call for human use. [Ecopsychologists] would reconceive nature along less narcissistic lines, as a sacred realm of intrinsic worth and as a world full of vital 'others' for the articulation of the human psyche. "

They see the problems of our alienation within human society as intrinsic to our alienation from nature. "If the psyche exists beyond the boundaries of the skin, then this makes it a social as well as an ecological phenomenon[.]"

Ecopsychology appears to be challenging ecological and psychological fields to push them towards radical and practical beliefs and solutions. Also to take social action inspired by ecopsychological theory. The author says that if "ecopsychology is to be a radical project then it must seek out the critical currents within psychology itself, not just ecology." (He explored deep ecology earlier before this quote and critisizes it for its view of the ecological crisis as a crisis of "character and culture." Saying that our character and culture has a social context, which the deep ecology movement has ignored.

Ecofeminism from another angle criticizes deep ecology because "the domination of nature cannot be satisfactorily understood unless viewed as a feminist issue, so is the connection between the man-centered or 'androcentric' exploitation of nature (regarded as feminine) and of women (regarded as natural). Many ecofeminists suggest that as a movement deep ecology is insufficiently sensitive to the complex ways in which naturism (domination of nature), sexism, racism, and classism interlock, and to the strategically central role that gender analysis could play in dismantling all of them."

I'll additionally point you towards this post for Ecopsychology's proposals to overcome society's generally apathetic malaise. >>209380
>>
Barnaby Heshfare - Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:20:21 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209397 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531365621421.jpg -(717699B / 700.88KB, 683x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Of the post linked to, in >>209396 about ecopsychology, the quote:
>"To make contact with present reality, however, is also to confront the painful feelings that are masked or numbed-out by our technological mode of living. So learning to collectively bear, find meaning in, and move through the suffering we inevitably uncover in the course of counterpractise is essential."
is supposed to have an endquote " at the end of the second sentence there.

And
>That could be group therapy, carthatic events like shows or protests, to take action, to attend carefully to relationships, symbolic rites of passage through different stages of our lives, and honor the growth or sacred unfolding of things, reconnecting with nature outside (the world) and inside (our self), whatever works and seems right.
is my attempt to summarize suggestions from a few pages with my own skew, which both miss plenty of unknown alternatives, to overcome society's overarching apathetic malaise.
>>
Phyllis Covingbod - Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:17:47 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209401 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531448267833.jpg -(47448B / 46.34KB, 575x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209396
>>Are you suggesting biological evolution and/or a technologically augmented human?
Definitely a both/and scenario. Although once we start changing our own genome Darwinian forces will act on us on a higher order, I think ultimately we will become more, rather than less, responsive to it. I think human evolution will definitely eventually go the way of merger with the machine, but one not necessarily need think that to believe that as we evolve we will have to become more integrated with our environment, whether as organic, synthetic, or hybrid beings.

>> many of those societies don't view the world as something to control with the right to subjugate it.
Agreed, however, I think we can also see from the history of interaction between peoples at different modes of production (i.e. between hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists, agriculurtalists and industrialists, etc.) that there is a convergent trend in human societies to an 'othering' mode of consciousness, primarily because of the uni-directional nature of technological progress. Even as pre-linguistic hunter gatherers, we might not have had the idea that we had unlimited right to use the land, but for example we believed often that our use of fire was endorsed divinely, and so spread a technology that (minutely by today's standards, but still measurably) set our species on a collision course with environmental calamity (agriculture and the fertility gods of the fertile crescent and its subsequent collapse being another good example.)

However, clearly some myths are better than other to inculcate positive values. Nature abhors a vacuum, and in a valueless system people will cling to the things that provide the cheapest return on their value reward system. It's the responsibility of people who can see the danger in this to instill a positive value system -- even if it means broaching the icky topic of instilling myths (in the ideological, rather than conspiratorial, sense.)

But definitely not exclusively a western phenomena, agreed. The modern west is just the most egregious example in the most advanced stage of a civilization undergoing this process, which is most likely universal.

>> I've gotten that impression during hallucinogenic experiences
FWIW, (and having had the same myself) people have had similar impressions without the aid of hallucinogens, so hopefully there is some truth to it.

>>Wont there always be a divide of self though? The physical separation of our skin from the environment and nothing more...
For human (as in h. sapiens) consciousness, probably yes, definitely. The experience of separation is intrinsic to the perception of the ego, and is a physical structure of the brain that is always there to eventually bring it back, unless it is somehow permanently destroyed (there are interesting head trauma cases related to this.) However I don't think it is an essential condition of consciousness as such, so I think it is not a universal condition. The fact that you can subdue the awareness of this through phenomena like meditation, or hallucinogens, or head trauma, suggest to me that the perception of the distinct self, while undeniably useful in many circumstances, is just another mental program our brains evolved as a survival mechanism, and that often we are at our best when we can turn that perception off and see our connection with the greater whole.

Nowadays, the best ways of accomplishing that are either societal engineering like you're suggesting, which is always difficult because you're trying to induce a new state of consciousness in society while the old one is still in effect, or are methods only useful briefly and are dangerous or difficult, like drugs or mental techniques. In a future where one can program one's own brain state, through nanomachines or advanced drugs or genetic engineering or whatever, one could still be 'human', and yet have absolute control over that sense of self, rather than being beholden to it more or less as we are in our present state. This will naturally facilitate other improvements (although it carries its own dangers, like everything.)

Still, your general point absolutely stands. Without some kind of intervention, human society will always be subject to the divide of self.

>> carthatic events like shows or protests, to take action, [etc]
I think this will be a key part of the revival of our species. I think a big obstacle to this currently is wage slavery. The benefits of mass production have been concentrated in the hands of a few at the expense of the mass, and of course it is a truism that money is time. Money is a narrative to control labor, and by controlling the labor of the mass, you limit their opportunity for self expression and enrichment. The more we can disrupt that narrative, the more room we will have for the kind of revival you're discussing here.
>>
Cyril Wipperfield - Fri, 13 Jul 2018 04:31:20 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209406 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531470680674.jpg -(497230B / 485.58KB, 900x658) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209401
>Even as pre-linguistic hunter gatherers, we might not have had the idea that we had unlimited right to use the land, but for example we believed often that our use of fire was endorsed divinely, and so spread a technology that (minutely by today's standards, but still measurably) set our species on a collision course with environmental calamity (agriculture and the fertility gods of the fertile crescent and its subsequent collapse being another good example.)
First Nations people used controlled fires to clear brush for growing crops in the wild. Even with technologically limited human people (by our present day standards) specialized and knew how to utilize their environment with the tools available to them, yet had a harmonious understanding of how and why to live as a part of nature.

Collapse is a great book studying past civilizations' factors that led to their calamity. Often it is from a sudden lack unsustaining of a concentration of people. Throughout history civilizations have risen and fallen and within the gaps of knowledge as to why, are many potential reasons. Perhaps revolt, or starvation, and/or migration, certainly a severing of trade (or transportation) of one's necessities.

I'll have to mull over other points, but:
>Nowadays, the best ways of accomplishing that are either societal engineering like you're suggesting, which is always difficult because you're trying to induce a new state of consciousness in society while the old one is still in effect, or are methods only useful briefly and are dangerous or difficult, like drugs or mental techniques.
I think of a heightened state of awareness and altered mode of perspective, or whatever, (sober) in relation to our way of life and other ways of life, is an individual path people choose to follow. Not something you can engineer in people, as if we're not unique with our own realized and unknown self right now. I don't think technology can reveal this awareness or perspective, the same way thinking will.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.