Existentialism

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:25 am

PostWed Oct 24, 2012 4:46 pm » by Dagnamski


Human responsibility and being true to oneself (not lying to oneself) becomes a center point for experts, “leaders”, intellectuals, and all of rational humanity.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/notaro20121024?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EthicalTechnology+Ethical+Technology&utm_content=My+Yahoo#When:06:04:38Z

The science is there, we are anxious, we are scared, but we are also responsible on a subjective, but universal level. Rationalism (through education) can lead the world’s people away from bad faith and towards real responsibility to diminish existential risks to humanity.
“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”

>>>>>Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostWed Oct 24, 2012 6:01 pm » by Seriouscitizen


Interesting article

But we must be honest with ourselves and realize that deterministic excuses, anguish, despair and abandonment can be avoided to a high level of degrees through science and technology. If Sartre wants us to avoid lying to ourselves, we must accept that science can rid the world of abandonment through the understanding of the word “value” and that we can save each other by valuing each other and science.


Even though i do agree that people lie to themselves in high levels. And aside or as an result from that put all the focus on 'other peoples shit' from a moral point of view. So as an result bad faith:

that is Sartre’s term for self-deception, the paradoxical state of lying to oneself, involving an impossible attempt at a flight from freedom, responsibility and anguish. Bad faith is an attempt to escape anguish by pretending that on is not free. It also means destructive and oppressive conformity.


But i'm skeptical, though open to the poissibility that 'science' is going to rescue us. I belive science is a tool to help us 'get in harmony' with nature. But i don't agree with a attitude that uses science that 'controls nature'
Perhaps even nanotech could create a safe ozone fixing machine, or genetic engineering can produce super trees that grow fast, take in massive amounts of CO2 and put out tons of oxygen, etc.


This all sounds great,. But i havent encountered a lot of scientist that want to adress the 'conditioning' that causes these problems in the first place. And see if they can change that, so it becomes more smoothly intertwined with existing 'natural' mechanisms. For example human health and capabilities, eugenics. We try and solve these problems without adressing the conditioning that cuases these downfalls. Because our 'history' teaches us that we are evolved and better of than we used to be. (penicillin, becoming older etc. )
For this conclusion we use historical events and information that are filtered because we like to believe the HERE AND NOW is always the most EVOLVED< SOPHISTICATED that is used to be.
But in that conclusion we have massive filters on that deny the current state of survival because of polution, dominate lineair thinking, unnatural foods etc. These conditions arent optimal. That means we can try and "save" our humanity. Assuming the conditioning we present have as a logical base ground for further progress. But this ground base will always try and solve things from out this conditioned frame. Therefor technology will seem a logical sollution. This is our pattern. Our commercial conditioning so the speak. Because we are used to always be 'in the future' into the next best thing. The next paychek. The next dopamine kick.
And we never doubt that we could solve our problems by adressing our conditiong in the base ground.
Also we cant look outside of that frame and see how there are sollutions outside of 'commercial' filters. How there are already people living in balance with nature. There are civilisations living on two end of extremes. And both claim different sollutions for our problems. Natives claim we should have more contact with the spirit world in order to become more balanced etc. And the commercial world claims we need more scientific and technological solutions.

My point is, try and get out of your conditioned mindset and try and compare, measure progress from a less comercial and maybe even less 'superior' attitude. Because truth is to me there are, and have been, civilisations 'more' evolved than us. Cause they simply didnt have to survive as we did, and werent always into the "NEXT BEST THING'. But truly in the here and now, using what was there for them already. And if you take that as a reference also, for further research etc. to determine what are the 'big solutions' the outcome would be more 'real'' because in the end, what is best for humanity is still subjective. Because the world doesnt only belong to the western 'rational' commercial world. There are a lot more people on here wanting different things.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:25 am

PostWed Oct 24, 2012 7:01 pm » by Dagnamski


I completely agree with you Mr. Serious Citizen.

Watching a clip on Neuroscience and the future revolution today, the subject prattled on about how we would eventually be able to use brain function and neuroscience to do this and that in warfare, make people want to buy things, change our attitudes etc. This I find incredibly scary because the commercial motives are destructive.

Slow integration with natural systems and gentle manipulation is the only way because unfortunately we do seem good at messing things up. E.g. genetic experiments in Germany in the 80's and 90's which have taken decades to ease themselves out of our ecosystems.
“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”

>>>>>Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostWed Oct 24, 2012 7:56 pm » by Seriouscitizen


Dagnamski wrote:I completely agree with you Mr. Serious Citizen.

Watching a clip on Neuroscience and the future revolution today, the subject prattled on about how we would eventually be able to use brain function and neuroscience to do this and that in warfare, make people want to buy things, change our attitudes etc. This I find incredibly scary because the commercial motives are destructive.

Slow integration with natural systems and gentle manipulation is the only way because unfortunately we do seem good at messing things up. E.g. genetic experiments in Germany in the 80's and 90's which have taken decades to ease themselves out of our ecosystems.


Its miss,. mrs :)

yeah defenitely and I think before we start even think about manipulation we could try and research how the impacts are on our evolvement if we maximize natural conditions. So what are different outcomes with different primairy conditiones. The best food. (eat like you breath, eat within 30 min of harvest; permaculture). No overactive survival state. (abundance), no mental pressure, but enhancement of speed of thought (again no overactive fear mechanisms by unnescesarry disruption of thoughtprocesses).
Imagine how i child would see the world if it wasnt surounded by war, artificial systems, people interupting his thoughtprocesses, other peoples emotional garbage, scarcity etc. And try and put all these conditiones into one whole project and see how it differs from other children. I could think of numerous experiments to examinate this. And don't get me wrong i dont mean let a kid be raised by the wolves, altough t hat would be interesting :headscratch: , i mean take all the experiences we have up to now with it(maybe aside from technological) and see how with different conditions the subjectve REALITY is perceived by that subject. I would be really interested in the opinion of one that is raised in the most unfiltered way as possible, and also see how that enhances eugenics :think:



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook