TQ White II

I consider my main goal to be lowering the bar to match my capability. I try to be satisfied by the things in my life that are good.

I am old enough so that getting sick as a prelude to dying is part of the planning process. I intend to have perfected my ability to look on the bright side by being able to take full satisfaction about any tiny thing that is good.

To the extent possible, I hope to avoid allowing negative stuff to influence my self evaluation or sense of happiness.

I am an old, male boomer. I want to shout: I think the anti-millennial crap spewed by older people is utter bullshit. It's unfair. It's wrong. It's so horrible I categorize it as on par with full-on racism.

Millenial people (they are not 'millenials', some mythic creature in your imagination) did, in actual fact, grow up and come of age in a remarkably shitty time. Worse than other bad times, maybe yes, maybe no, but from 9-11 on, American society has not been good. This is compounded by their vicious exploitation by the ruling classes and corporations. You needn't go any farther than the elimination of art and music from public school, to the cost of college education and then the rapacious structure of the student loan industry.

But another thing that matured in the lives of millennial people is the technology of worker exploitation. The fucking over of young people in the job market is unconscionable. And, as with student loans, it's abetted by the government (though more on one side of the aisle than the other) supporting corporations uber alles.

Before networked technology, it wasn't practical to manage randomized work schedules that make you work days alternating with working nights. There weren't as many jobs simple enough that firing an experience worker because they are making an extra buck an hour and you can hire a new one for less. It makes your life miserable on purpose.

We won't talk about climate change, the unwholesomeness of food, or mass shootings every day, or etc, but they count, too. Suffice to say, I agree that things suck today and tell you that they are actual things that have been done, almost maliciously, mostly to young people.

I also think that much of it could have been avoided. I think the older peoples' condemnation of millennial people is mostly projection. They cannot face the guilt of having wrecked the culture and the planet so they blame the victims.

I start to say that I also apologize for my age cohort and it's bad behavior but, that doesn't capture my real feeling. I am enraged and ashamed of being part of such a rapacious, short sighted and prejudiced bunch.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-trad-wife

Bertrand Russell says,

“The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians, consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history derived from the Jews; and third, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism*, and to kindred cults of the Near East.

The most important Jewish elements in Christianity appear to me to be the following:

• I. A sacred history, beginning with the creation, leading to a consummation in the future, and justifying the ways of God to man.

• II. The existence of a small section of mankind whom God specially loves. For Jews, this section was the Chosen People; for

Christians, the elect.

• III. A new conception of ‘righteousness’. The virtue of almsgiving, for example, was taken over by Christianity from later Judaism. The importance attached to baptism might be derived from Orphism or from oriental pagan mystery religions, but practical philanthropy, as an element in the Christian conception of virtue, seems to have come from the Jews.

• IV. The Law. Christians kept part of the Hebrew Law, for instance the decalogue, while they rejected its ceremonial and ritual parts. But in practice they attached to the Creed much the same feelings that the Jews attached to the Law. This involved the doctrine that correct belief is at least as important as virtuous action, a doctrine which is essentially Hellenic. What is Jewish in origin is the exclusiveness of the elect. 

• V. The Messiah. The Jews believed that the Messiah would bring them temporal prosperity, and victory over their enemies here on earth; moreover, he remained in the future. For Christians, the Messiah was the historical Jesus, who was also identified with the Logos of Greek philosophy; and it was not on earth, but in heaven, that the Messiah was to enable his followers to triumph over their enemies.

• VI. The Kingdom of Heaven. Other-worldliness is a conception which Jews and Christians, in a sense, share with later Platonism, but it takes, with them, a much more concrete form than with Greek philosophers. The Greek doctrine — which is to be found in much Christian philosophy, but not in popular Christianity — was that the sensible world, in space and time, is an illusion, and that, by intellectual and moral discipline, a man can learn to live in the eternal world, which alone is real. The Jewish and Christian doctrine, on the other hand, conceived the Other World as not metaphysically different from this world, but as in the future, when the virtuous would enjoy everlasting bliss and the wicked would suffer everlasting torment. This belief embodied revenge psychology, and was intelligible to all and sundry, as the doctrines of Greek philosophers were not. 

To understand the origin of these beliefs, we must take account of certain facts in Jewish history, to which we will now turn our attention ...“

— Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Two. Catholic Philosophy, Part. I. The Fathers, Ch. I: The Religious Development of the Jews, pp. 307-09

━━

* Orphism (more rarely Orphicism; Ancient Greek: Ὀρφικά, romanized: Orphiká) is the name given to a set of religious beliefs and practices originating in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic world, associated with literature ascribed to the mythical poet Orpheus, who descended into the Greek underworld and returned.

— Bertrand Russell, Portraits From Memory And Other Essays (1950), Essay: V. Beliefs: Discarded and Retained, pp. 40-1

 Long ago, the failed presidential candidate, Ross Perot, said that he could not understand how anyone felt they could trust someone who didn't believe in God (his, of course) because, without a divine imperative, why would they adhere to any moral code. That pissed me off and I've been thinking about it ever since.

The essay above is the basic idea of my answer to the question, Where does morality come from if humans are basically just overgrown yeast cells in a universe that doesn't care. Or, more simply, why don't we kill each other with the same zest as great white sharks at a beach.

The basic premise is that our brains are built to appreciate order and safety. Other things, too, that add up to what the religious types attribute to "God's will" but are instead fundamental aspects of human biology.

Along the way, I have become interested in philosophy. It turns out that there are a lot of people who have tried to figure out more about what is going on in our culture and the universe. Among those are the two I mention above, Kierkegaard and Sartre (he's the guy that inspired the picture below). They are among the earliest people (along with Hume and Kant a hundred years before from a completely different perspective) to really explore how humans get their morality without assuming 'God made them do it'.

Neurological Existentialism is an attempt to improve on their answers. On the one hand by explaining how we could be 'good' without God to tell us how. On the other, how we can be fulfilled without God telling us that we are ok.

Kierkegaard's exploration of existential challenges rooted in a supernatural God and Sartre's emphasis on radical freedom, while insightful, each possess inherent limitations. Kierkegaard's reliance on supernaturalism may pose difficulties for those without religious faith, while Sartre's oversight of human biology neglects the profound influence of our neurobiology on existential experiences.

In response to these limitations, Neurological Existentialism emerges as a synthesis—a third way—aimed at reconciling tensions between the supernatural and the natural, and between existential freedom and biological determinism. At its core lies an acknowledgment of the intrinsic interplay between our biological makeup and our existential experiences. Within this framework, innate human tendencies—fear, desire, and the pursuit of order—serve as foundational elements in shaping ethical principles and existential choices.

By redefining the concept of the "leap of faith" as an exploration and belief in our essence, Neurological Existentialism offers a departure from Kierkegaard's reliance on supernatural belief. Instead of leaping towards a transcendent deity, we are encouraged to delve into the depths of our neurobiological makeup and existential experiences to discover meaning and purpose.

Similarly, the notion of "radical freedom" is reconceptualized within Neurological Existentialism. Rather than a daunting expanse of boundless choice, radical freedom becomes a liberating recognition that our actions are guided by our neurological characteristics. These characteristics offer both support and constraints, providing a framework for navigating our existential journey with greater understanding and acceptance.

In embarking on this philosophical endeavor, Neurological Existentialism offers a compelling synthesis—a third way—that integrates scientific inquiry with existential reflection. Through this synthesis, we deepen our comprehension of the complexities of human existence and the pursuit of ethical understanding. This paradigm transcends the limitations of previous philosophical models, fostering a holistic approach to grappling with the intricacies of human nature and experience.

Here's my idea: Don't talk about people at all. Don't say someone is normal, neurotypical, smart, ugly or tall, unless you are actively helping them solve an individual problem that you are qualified for.

I figured out what's wrong. Why we hate what woke has become, same with political correctness. I suspect that it applies to the right wing, too, but don't care to think about it. 

Ready:

We have become obsessed with accommodating all the edge cases.

The story mentioned in the picture below, I have not read. But, I will bet that some people reading this immediately think we should figure out a way to deal with it humanely. 

This is a thing so rare that it makes the front page, though I'm sure the story makes clear that it happens many more times. Also, that many more times adds up to .0001% of drunk driving police actions, the very definition of an edge case.

So, we add another thing for police to deal with that makes one of the main jobs more difficult.

I do not have the energy but would bet many bucks that I could construct a story fitting this idea for most of the ills. Either the effect is minuscule, the occasions for its happening are minuscule or the cost-effect ratio is completely out of whack. 

We are not using correct judgement. Consequently, we have enough rules and accommodations that even die hard liberals are fed up.

And it's because we are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We are trying to construct a system that accommodates all the rare edge cases and that is bad.

The metaphysical discussion mentioned in my previous post was actually conducted using both Bard and ChatGPT4. Since I am developing a dangerous addiction to playing with AI (it's the only kind of intelligence that will indulge me), I kept going. I added this to the conversation:

I want an essay explaining this view, not justifying it. I want the essay to explain in an optimistic tone based on awareness of the previous segment where we discussed how living in this universe "liberates us to create a life experience " . I repeat that I do not want to be convincing people who read the essay, I want them merely to understand my view.

I gave the entire conversation to both Bard and ChatGPT4 and got two crazily different results. I note that the Bard example was its first response. GPT, otoh, wrote an essay that carried a tone of that suggested that we might be saddened by this perspective (reasonable, I suppose since it was trained on an internet full of god-fearing people). I had to engage it in conversation about the upside before I got an essay that was good. Bard got it from the get-go. "A vast canvas splashed with a chaotic mix of colors." You can't beat that. Interestingly, though, it was not very useful in the overall conversation. It kept converging on conventionalities. I did the vast majority of the work (see previous post) with GPT.

BARD: A Universe of Meaningful Patterns: A Justification for Human-Made Significance

Imagine a vast canvas splashed with a chaotic mix of colors. To an unseeing eye, it's nothing but random strokes. But enter a human observer, and the magic begins. Patterns emerge, shapes coalesce, and the canvas transforms into a vibrant landscape, a story spun from light and pigment. This, I propose, is the essence of our universe and our place within it: a chaotic backdrop upon which we paint the vibrant tapestry of meaning.

We, as products of evolution, are hardwired for pattern recognition. Our brains, honed through eons of survival, excel at identifying order amidst the cosmic noise. This inherent tendency isn't merely a quirky evolutionary quirk. It's the foundation of our knowledge, our ethics, and ultimately, our understanding of ourselves.

Consider the anthropic principle: the universe we observe, with its finely tuned constants and life-supporting laws, appears tailor-made for consciousness. Yet, this "meaningful" design is an illusion. It's not the universe that harbors a cosmic purpose, but our pattern-seeking minds that project it onto the canvas. The vast multitude of unobserved universes, devoid of sentient life, paints a stark picture of cosmic indifference.

But within this indifference lies a profound freedom. Absent a preordained script, we are the authors of our own meaning. Through our cognitive faculties, we weave narratives from the fabric of existence, finding significance in the intricate dance of particles, the rise and fall of civilizations, the connections forged with fellow beings.

From the abstract laws of physics to the moral codes that bind societies, our "meaning-making" takes myriad forms. We derive beauty from the rhythmic patterns of music, the symmetry of a snowflake, the harmonious interplay of ecosystems. We find purpose in upholding the patterns of ethical conduct that ensure the smooth functioning of our communities.

Some contend that this human-centric view diminishes the "realness" of meaning. But is the sunset less magnificent because it exists for our eyes alone? Does the melody lose its sweetness because only our ears can grasp it? Our patterns, though subjective, are no less real or impactful within the framework of our conscious experience.

Perhaps the ultimate justification for this perspective lies in its potential. By embracing our role as meaning-makers, we unlock a boundless universe of possibilities. We can strive to understand the intricate patterns that govern the cosmos, forging an ever-closer connection with the grand tapestry of existence. We can refine the patterns of our societies, striving for a world where justice, kindness, and cooperation form the leitmotif of our collective narrative.

So, let us dance in the grand ballroom of the universe, not as unwitting extras on a preordained stage, but as creative artists, each brushstroke adding a unique hue to the ever-evolving canvas of meaning. We are the ones who imbue the universe with significance, not because it's inherently meaningful, but because we are, by our very nature, meaning-making machines. And in that, lies a beauty and a power that transcends the cosmic indifferent.

ChatGPT4: Embracing the Randomness: A Mechanistic View of the Universe and Human Existence

In the grand narrative of the cosmos, a mechanistic view offers a distinct and thought-provoking perspective. This viewpoint considers the universe not as a canvas painted with deliberate strokes of cosmic intention but as an expanse shaped by the random processes of quantum fluctuations. It's a universe where meaning, as we understand it, is not an inherent feature but a product of human cognition, a perspective that reshapes our understanding of existence and our role within the cosmic order.

At the heart of this perspective is the concept of meaning as a human construct. In a universe without observers, events unfold independently of the labels and significances we attribute to them. Stars burn, galaxies form, and particles interact in a void of human interpretation. It is only when consciousness arises, capable of perceiving and interpreting these events, that the concept of 'meaning' emerges. This realization has profound implications. It suggests that the universe in its raw state is devoid of the narratives and values we attach to it, and these emerge solely from our interaction with our surroundings.

The role of quantum fluctuations in this perspective cannot be overstated. They are the fundamental processes that, through their randomness, generate the tapestry of the universe. Some of these cosmic experiments result in universes teeming with life and consciousness, like ours, while others remain barren. This aligns with the anthropic principle, which acknowledges that our understanding of the universe is inherently biased towards conditions that support our existence. It's a humbling reminder that our presence in the universe is not the result of a grand design but a serendipitous occurrence in the multitude of cosmic possibilities.

This framework redefines the act of meaning-making as an inherently human endeavor. When we observe the universe, from the microcosm of a shifting grain of sand to the macrocosm of the gravitational constant, we are engaging in a distinctly human process. We are not uncovering an intrinsic truth of the cosmos but creating a narrative that gives structure and understanding to our observations. This process is deeply rooted in the primary function of the human brain: pattern recognition. Our brains are wired to identify patterns, a trait that has been crucial for our survival and evolution. This neurological inclination shapes our entire cognitive experience, influencing how we perceive and interact with the world.

The link between this cognitive process and our emotional well-being is significant. By engaging in pattern recognition, we are not just processing information; we are also finding satisfaction and a sense of order. This act of making sense of the world is intrinsically tied to our emotional state. It suggests that our pursuit of understanding, our construction of societal norms, and our appreciation of beauty are more than intellectual exercises. They are integral to our experience of fulfillment and contentment.

In a universe where humans are akin to yeast cells – complex yet unremarkable in the larger cosmic narrative – this mechanistic view might seem to strip us of our special status. However, it does the opposite. It liberates us from the constraints of seeking a predestined purpose and empowers us to define our own paths. Our pursuit of knowledge, our creation of art, and our establishment of ethical frameworks are not validations of a cosmic significance but expressions of our unique human capacity to find order and meaning in randomness.

This perspective encourages us to view the universe not as a domain awaiting our discovery of its truths but as a playground for our creativity and curiosity. In this vast and indifferent cosmos, our significance comes not from a predetermined role but from our ability as conscious beings to interpret, create, and find joy in our existence. It invites us to embrace the randomness, to find beauty in the chaos, and to celebrate our ability to create meaning in a universe that offers none on its own.