We Are All The Same

[Borachio]

Aphorism 153

What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What is done out of hate always takes place beyond good and evil

Me, 40 800 103

 

[Borachio]

You mean that 153 corresponds to the 40,800,103th aphorism of yours?

I''ve thought something very similar myself. But that's the nature of many aphorisms, especially the ones that seem true. They do kind of resonate.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am troubled by this statement because it IMO - intentionally or unintentionally - tries to deceit the reader. To be beyond good and bad is nothing else then putting personal preference in their place. It is the antithesis to considering higher values, the embodiment of destructive pursue of self-interests.
It is something that is frequently used (also by myself I have to say) in place of higher values. Love is only in so far special as it actively means the "intoxication" of the infected.
So what was being said? That it is cool to ignore higher values if you are under the influence of a natural toxin? We may of course say "Yey, love is so nice. It overrules higher values". But instead of this, the statement chooses to imply that it was some kind of natural order. But it is a choice. A choice which has long been different.

Just take that as my general discontent with supposedly wise one-liners. They at times really just serve as social laws you can check your responsibility in and send it off.

 

[Borachio]

Oh. Look that. Silly me. I didn't realize you'd reversed the aphorism quite like that. I should have looked more closely.

Um. Yes. No. The two really aren't symmetrical like that.

I don't think Nietzche was talking about the oxytocin-induced love you seem to be referring to. I really wouldn't like to define what he was talking about.

Perhaps one-liners serve as a jumping-off point for deeper examination. And as a useful, perhaps, aide-memoire. Nothing more.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hm, perhaps
So what are you saying in this specific case? That with love all forms of love are addressed? The love towards neighbors, my home, my children, my job, my life etceter?
What if I just love to hurt people? I suppose that would be no true love?

 

[Borachio]

You mean "love" is just a synonym for "like"? Seems a bit limited to me.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Maybe I am making myself not clear because the word love doesn't has quit the same spectrum as its German alternative. But I now mean the whole spectrum. And I am also saying that love doesn't work as the absolute factor of what to do. A factor, fine. But not something advisably to completely detach from higher values or to accept as the ultimate higher value. IMO higher values have to be a lot about calculus to work. Not just about what makes us feel good.

 

[Borachio]

I really don't know what to make of this.

You refer to "intoxication". As if love is a kind of poison.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well romantic love is like being on drugs. Chemically. And symptom-wise. That is what makes it so appealing. But I concede the later companionship is also nice.
Also: edit-ninja!

 

[King Kalmah]

Well romantic love is like being on drugs. Chemically. And symptom-wise. That is what makes it so appealing.
Also: edit-ninja!

The come down from drugs is rather... time released as it were...

heartbreak is like ripping a bandaid off...it hurts then and it might even bleed/continues to hurt....


atleast in my experience when I was in love I felt like a I was on Oxy....

the heart break put me in a two/three week depression...edit....

 

[civver_764]

Calling the particles "non-conscious" seems like a straw man. If the arrangement matters, the particles sometimes participate in/constitute consciousness, sometimes not - depending on the arrangement. The idea isn't that the particles are inherently unconscious.

But you've still drawn a line somewhere where concious experieince suddenly pops into existence where before it didn't.

If as you say, consciousness is all that is Real, then one could assume that "particles" and anything they make, would also be, in fact, of that same consciousness and that consciousness an inherent part of their more finite existence. there is no creation of consciousness. It is, was and will be, all.

Yeah, they do. They operate the way they're designed too.

What you're doing with drugs is you're introducing foreign substances and chemicals that alter the way the brain is normally meant to function. This in turn confuses the brain, who attempts to make sense of all these new chemicals and ends up really strange results, because, well, the brain isn't designed to deal with them.

Name a drug and a quick Google search will let me tell you exactly how you're messing with the brain by inducing those chemicals.

Who designed our brains and towards what purpose? To me it's obvious that our brains are far from optimal given the large amount of hate and other irrational activity that goes on on this planet.

The brain doesn't become "confused" when in contact with these subtances, it simply gains a new perspective.

Well romantic love is like being on drugs. Chemically. And symptom-wise. That is what makes it so appealing. But I concede the later companionship is also nice.
Also: edit-ninja!

I'd distinguish between true, universal love(the love that we should all feel for each other as one being) and romantic love. The latter isn't much different from a drug addiction.

 

[Borachio]

Universal love can also be seen as some mighty force, too. The urge to animation and consciousness, if you like.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Okay, you still can't dream your enemies to be nice. Ultimately, you make yourself easy pray. Er, I think that belongs somewhere else.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why would a mouse not be capable of that? I don't see any reason to assume they aren't, mice clearly feel pain and their minds are clearly conditioned to identify that pain as bad. And so they suffer. Just because they can't necessarily become aware of what their mind is doing there doesn't mean it isn't happening.

If the belief that one is suffering does not require reflection, then, but only the immediate sensation of suffering, what distinguishes it from "real" suffering? The only distinction you seem to have is that it is possible to rid oneself of perceived suffering, but if a being, like the mouse, does not possess the intellectual capacity to actually do so, is that distinction valid?

You're right, when I rejected the possibility of meaning I was getting ahead of myself. Whatever we are, it seems that we can exist in states which we don't desire. So there is a meaning to suffering and it seems to be the very act of not wanting something. It is obvious that we should not experience suffering simply because that's the definition of it.

So now you've decided that there is authentic meaning after all? Is this objective meaning, or subjective meaning? And, in either case, why do you limit this recognition to emotional experience?

I don't reject that peace of mind is better than suffering. That would presuppose that there exists another level of abstraction beyond this consciousness that we are experiencing.

I don't see why. If nothing is possessed of meaning, objective or subjective, then nothing is "good" or "bad", it just is. Peace of mind and suffering are just different states of mind, both meaningless and therefore neither superior to the other.

We can't cause suffering in others, but we can make it more likely that they will suffer and we can definitely have the intention of making them suffer.

But if we follow your logic, we merely think that we have made it more likely, because in reality our actions are a stream of incoherent noise; if they choose to interpret those actions as something that causes them suffering, that is their independent and unrelated choice. Only by returning to a recognition of the authenticity of meaning can this proposed relationship exist, and so far you only seem willing to extent that to certain, wholly individual emotional experiences, and not to inter-subjective material processes.

I'm curious anyways though, besides your objections to what I'm saying, how do you personally explain the existence of consciousness and suffering?

The short answer would be that I think that they're biological processes.

 

[civver_764]

When I first made this thread I got way too excited and said too much stuff, which is probably causing lots of confusion. Here's what I'm saying:

1. We are all one conciousness that individualizes itself through use of our senses.
2. All suffering is merely that conciousness deciding that something isn't right.
3. Human society and our everyday lives do not matter. Problems are only problems insofar as we've identified them as problems. Stuff that we think we need to accomplish we actually don't. True happiness can only be found within ourselves, not in the outside world.

You've probably heard these ideas before.

If the belief that one is suffering does not require reflection, then, but only the immediate sensation of suffering, what distinguishes it from "real" suffering? The only distinction you seem to have is that it is possible to rid oneself of perceived suffering, but if a being, like the mouse, does not possess the intellectual capacity to actually do so, is that distinction valid?

I wasn't making a distinction, I was saying that suffering is something the mind does in response to certain conditions. I don't know what you mean with the real/perceived suffering dichotomy, but that wasn't what I was saying. If suffering wasn't perceived it wouldn't be suffering.

So now you've decided that there is authentic meaning after all? Is this objective meaning, or subjective meaning? And, in either case, why do you limit this recognition to emotional experience?

Objective meaning. The reason I draw the line there is because that is the most fundamental aspect of our existence, how we are perceiving what happens.

I don't see why. If nothing is possessed of meaning, objective or subjective, then nothing is "good" or "bad", it just is. Peace of mind and suffering are just different states of mind, both meaningless and therefore neither superior to the other.

Suffering is undesirable by definition, it is that which we don't desire.

That isn't to say we should judge the quality of someone's life based on how much suffering was involved or whatever.

But if we follow your logic, we merely think that we have made it more likely, because in reality our actions are a stream of incoherent noise; if they choose to interpret those actions as something that causes them suffering, that is their independent and unrelated choice. Only by returning to a recognition of the authenticity of meaning can this proposed relationship exist, and so far you only seem willing to extent that to certain, wholly individual emotional experiences, and not to inter-subjective material processes.

I don't see what point you're making here.

The short answer would be that I think that they're biological processes.

That seems unlikely to me, but I don't see any point in arguing over this.