Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 96 KB, 481x583, monad ego personality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11273915 No.11273915 [Reply] [Original]

Are some people more conscious than others?

>> No.11273976

definitely. considering i percieve myself to be more conscious than, say, five years ago, and definitely way more than when i was a child, i reckon consciousness to be something that can be cultivated through stimulation, focus and reflection.

>> No.11273988

I have a theory that the lonely introverted people you'd find on 4chan are the way they are because they have trouble imagining "normies" or just other people in general as being just as consious as they are and having feelings that are equally as deep. Well-adjusted people see everyone else as humans and not bugs.

>> No.11273992
File: 450 KB, 855x919, (stallman sicp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11273992

>>11273915
>monad
HASKELL

>> No.11274004

>>11273915

OP, is it you or multiple anons opening all the threads about consciousness? I am personally very interested in the argument. Have you ever read Plotinus? For me it was a great read to start thinking about the nature of consciousness and mind in general.

>> No.11274029

>>11273915
Yes, i forget what the study is called but they’re exploring this idea in theory of mind and neuroscience, there is good reason to believe among humans there are varying degrees of consciousness and that its likely many people are significantly less sapient than others are. Just from observing how dull and vacant normalfags and academics are this is pretty obvious. This is why its perfectly ok to be a sociopath imo, who fucking cares half of these things aren’t even human

>> No.11274048

>>11274004
I made the other consciousness thread yes. I've also read Plotinus. Glad you liked it. I like what Plotinus says about the soul, as this light that is "reflected" off whatever will receive it, which is kind of a fancy way of saying consciousness will always emerge where its conditions are met.


>>11274029
I agree but I think having a "higher" consciousness should kinda preclude that sort of attitude

>> No.11274100

>>11273915
I've had this lingering thought that political history is the result of increasing consciousness in the masses. For example, the structure of feudalism was shaped by the small percentage of people having what we call consciousness, and therefore a political and economic system was created to benefit and consolidate power in the hands of those conscious humans, granting them lordships and royalty to rule over the unthinking masses. As time goes on and the 'consciousness gene' becomes more widespread, the conscious humans among the masses become discontent and find the system unacceptable, beginning the shift to liberal capitalism. Now, with even more of the Western world possessing consciousness, we again see discontent with the current political order, and so those conscious people within the lower-classes begin to look for alternatives granting themselves liberation/power, so we see a resurgence of socialism and left-libertarianism and direct democracy. In short, people with consciousness don't like to be ruled and without some kind of power, so the more people possessing consciousness, the more the world requires an egalitarian political economy.

>> No.11274119

>>11274100
I agree with this somewhat but you'd be hard-pressed to convince everyone leftists are universally more conscious than the leaders of the system they are reacting towards. I would say it is the (best of) /pol/ types right now who are more conscious than these bovine leftists you see everywhere

>> No.11274141

>>11274119
I didn't mean to claim leftists were more conscious, but that the more people you have who possess consciousness but lack power and capital, the more leftists there will be, if that makes sense, because those with consciousness will generally want some sense of self-rule and control over the world.

>> No.11274154

>>11274119
pol get tunnel vision though. I think people like Spengler had a much deeper understanding of history, even if he went off the rails a bit with some of his conclusions.

One thing that makes almost everybody reduced to speculation is the development of new technologies, which dont have any sort of logic or predictability to them at all.

>> No.11274165

>>11274154
yeah not trying to hold up /pol/ as anything, a lot of them are barely more sapient than libs, but the types of views they propagate are far more likely to attract actual human beings instead of niggas who have a serial number on every thought they've ever had

>> No.11274175

>>11274048
no im not talking about consciousness as an abstract phantasmic soul; i mean that the neural architecture of some people is less complex so what we associate with higher faculties, including self awareness, are stunted or non-existent in most humans. I don’t care about Vedantic shit like high consciousness being some dissolution into Atma-Buddhi. That’s why i said there was a study on it. Some 90 iq Vedantist isn’t more conscious than a 105 iq Target employee
>>11274100
Insipid
>>11274141
Communism isn’t self rule its the opposite
>>11274165
this isn’t the case anymore, it was two years ago before reddit flood

>> No.11274187

>>11274175
>
no im not talking about consciousness as an abstract phantasmic soul; i mean that the neural architecture of some people is less complex so what we associate with higher faculties, including self awareness, are stunted or non-existent in most humans.

yeah I got that, im saying if you're more self-aware you're more likely to be exhibit traits people would associate with a spiritual discipline

>> No.11274188

>>11274175
>Communism isn’t self rule its the opposite

In theory, a stateless, moneyless society isn't the the endpoint of universal self-rule?

>> No.11274202

>>11274100
other way round, modern wagies are not only less conscious machinic alienated droids than their free medieval peasant counterparts, the modern middle class have managed to sacrifice their sentience to the very system they created too
only rothschilds and neets are real humans

>> No.11274204

>>11274175
this is basically what Cram thought
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/FultonsLair/013/nock/cram.html

>> No.11274217

>>11274188
LOL, don't you know there is nothing more freeing than a 40 hour work week and living under the thumb of corporate rule?

>> No.11274255

>>11273988
Most people see others who are not "normal" as inferior.

>> No.11274317
File: 143 KB, 1264x632, 1518737121999.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11274317

ive noticed something's been lost, a certain intensity and splendor of consciousness that is perceptibly waning. read even a letter from just a 100 years ago and compare it to the average article gets published today. shit, just watch an art film from the 60s and compare them to the independent """art""" films of today and get back to me (do Seventh Seal vs. Lady Bird)

loneliness, suffering, political and social turmoil is a soulmaker. what this guy says here: >>11274204

having the option to tune out these conditions is killing us, reverting us to anonymous goop.

simply put: without distractions of entertainment or other people, you had to make your own fullness. and that's just not an option for most people today because they don't even realize it exists. you know how during a blackout you're able find a joy in simple things, small things, because your standards for what qualifies as leisure activity no longer involves the entire fucking noosphere at your fingertips? now imagine that for a lifetime.

I... I think im going to disconnect soon. see where this takes me...

>> No.11275540

Semi-conscious bump.

>> No.11275559

>>11274187
there are spiritual disciplines that state exactly the view that I expressed above anon, not all spiritual disciplines are collectivist or kind to the public
>>11274188
absolutely not, no. Because you're still ruled by the commune and the commune is the LCD which will drag your brilliance down and force you to share every secret, every personal affect, every love with the hive. You lose your soul to be free from domination, not worthy of anyone who has a highly developed sense of Self.
>>11274204
will cheq out
>>11274217
this isn't reddit or twitter, and no one is advocating for capitalism or coporate fascist bug world
>>11274317
its because of dysgenics, corporate capitalism, vision machine (the black screens literally rape your self and inundate the inner world with vaporous, fleeting images and extirpate your capacity for subtle amazement, introspection; this is why the public looks inhuman if you spend a considerable time away from screens)

>> No.11275593

>>11273988
The word you're looking for is resentment.

>> No.11275598

>>11273976
isn't all that praxis?

>> No.11275625

>>11275559
>its because of dysgenics, corporate capitalism, vision machine (the black screens literally rape your self and inundate the inner world with vaporous, fleeting images and extirpate your capacity for subtle amazement, introspection; this is why the public looks inhuman if you spend a considerable time away from screens)

they depict reality with a kind of plastic weightlessness and insipidity that I've only recently been getting wise to. it's the shadow play on the cave wall quite literally honed to a science. 90% of the political discourse on the internet today is conducted at a remove, gritless, sanitized to the nub (ex. all the fingerwagging at police for making mistakes in high-stress situations by reddit bug people whose sense of the Real have been so completely atrophied by the image they're fundamentally unable to imagine what policework is like)

im getting pretty tired of it. gonna unplug soon.

>> No.11275655

>>11275559
>absolutely not, no. Because you're still ruled by the commune and the commune is the LCD which will drag your brilliance down and force you to share every secret, every personal affect, every love with the hive. You lose your soul to be free from domination, not worthy of anyone who has a highly developed sense of Self.

Maybe, but still besides the point of the appeal of economic emancipation through shared ownership of the means of production. I'm not saying leftists are right, I'm just saying wage-labor and class systems become untenable as more people begin to view themselves as equal to everyone else.

>> No.11275660

>>11275655
egalitarianism is a joke.

>> No.11275944

>>11273915
ok having only known the term "monad" from Leibniz what is this

>> No.11275953
File: 16 KB, 521x524, Monad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11275953

>>11275944
God.

>> No.11275989

>>11274100
The pace of human advancement is very, very, very far removed from that of genetic development.
I liked the way it was put by Nick Bostrom:
"A few thousand years ago, in early human (or hominid) prehistory, growth was so slow that it took on the order of one million years for human productive capacity to increase sufficiently to sustain an additional one million individuals living at subsistence level. By 5000 bc, following the Agricultural Revolution, the rate of growth had increased to the point where the same amount of growth took just two centuries. Today, following the Industrial Revolution, the world economy grows on average by that amount every ninety minutes."

It's not evolution, it's not gene-passing. It's all circumstance.

>> No.11276009

>>11273988
Nah, that's bullshit. I have a high degree of empathy and it's part of what gives me a low opinion of others - when they complain that I see the world in black and white, they're just tacitly admitting to me that they are arrested at the stage I was many years ago - trapped in dogmatic comfort.

I don't hate them for it, but I also don't care to pretend like we can coexist in a democratic polity. I wouldn't trust some of my closest friends to vote, but most of the people I would trust to vote are people I would never want to hang out with.

>> No.11276011

>>11274317
people from 100 years ago were in a far more focused practice of writing and reading because there was too little else competing for their attention. The problem with the modern mind is simply that it's too broad in scope, and its information is too scattered and disconnected. It's harder for us to express ourselves to impressive ends than it would be if our lives and experiences were simpler. But if you traveled back in time and met those individuals who impressed you, you'd discover that they lack in areas you wouldn't expect, and you'd likely impress them with the vastness of your own understanding of the world, because your world is much, much bigger than theirs.

>> No.11276057

>>11276009
i have very low empathy, im not sure i even really have empathy at all, i cant remember ever feeling bad for the pain i have caused anyone, which there has been rather a lot of. But i dont find it hard to understand other people as real minds like my own.

I think some people sound like they are more real than me if that makes sense. There are some experiences they talk about which i have never had, i feel like the automaton in the comparison.

I find this board interesting because it is full of very sensitive people, and these types have always intrigued me, especially the women. They are so reactive, they're like mercury or something, you do something to them and you can see the psychic storm literally manifest in their faces.

idk why im replying to your post really

>> No.11276078

>>11276057
Try doing something nice, anon. It's like having superpowers.

>> No.11276120
File: 150 KB, 359x414, 1509634381170.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11276120

ITT:

>> No.11276184

>>11273988
>he STILL hasn't ascended past normie levels of consciousness
lmao what are you even doing

>> No.11276199

>>11273915
Define conscious.

>> No.11276201

>>11273915
I'm not convinced anyone is conscious.

>> No.11276206

>>11275655
I don't think that production or labor itself disappear in practice as people "view themselves as equal" which I also don't think happens ever, just in political speech and the imagination of college professors, and there is still obligation and there is still a surrendering of agency to obligation which is organized by the collective's interests (not your needs, but the desires of a group that can never fully satiate your desires). its just incoherent.
>>11275953
extremely gay god
>>11275625
falling away from themselves, its really cool watching irl

>> No.11276247

>>11273915

Yes.

>> No.11276311

>>11276009
this is relatable

and i hate myself that i agree

>> No.11276322

>>11274100
this way of thought is so fucking bad

read crime and punishment

>> No.11276640

>>11276009
Le kantian dogmatic slumber

Could you explain in greater detail what was you dogmatic comfort ?

>> No.11276656

conscious of what? consciousness is not just a vapour without object

some people are more conscious of first principles / philosophical truths, yes - this is the kind of consciousness we call "wisdom".
but there are all sorts of things you can be conscious, e.g. a sportsman may be more conscious of the flow of a game.

>> No.11276667

>>11274100
>For example, the structure of feudalism was shaped by the small percentage of people having what we call consciousness, and therefore a political and economic system was created to benefit and consolidate power in the hands of those conscious humans, granting them lordships and royalty to rule over the unthinking masses.

Except the "unthinking masses" were often very conscious of their loyalty to kings and feudal lords and often took pride in it. Acknowledging your place in a hierarchy does not necessarily make you an unthinking slave. Otherwise children, students, soldiers, etc., are "unthinking slaves" because they refuse to rebel against their parents, teachers, generals, etc.

>> No.11276682

>>11274175
>Some 90 iq Vedantist isn’t more conscious than a 105 iq Target employee
As I said in previous post, in depends on the object of consciousness. You can have a 150 IQ college student who drinks coffee all day and is conscious in an anxious, jittery way while focused on trivialities. And you can have a 90 IQ monk who is rapt in contemplation. Raw intelligence does give you a greater POTENTIAL but that potentiality must be actualised. The 150 IQ college student would make a greater sage than the 90 IQ monk if the former was also living the monastic life just as well.

>> No.11276692

>>11273915
People have different focuses and develop to thrive on different things. Think about the idea of a person sweeping a broom for 30 years and making the same amount of money as an executive makes in a day. The executive developed as a person who thrived on industriousness and wealth creation, whereas the janitor developed as one who thrives on sheepishness and pride in their /mildly/ essential position (note: this position changes as the individual grows older. Waterboy to janitor, Yearbook manager to garbageman, etc).

The bottom line here is that these people aren't essentially different, they just fit into the modern parameters of being human in the way that most suits them. So, no, some people are not "more conscious" than others, we just develop focusing on different things.

That being said, the retarded and insane are surely less conscious than others.

>> No.11276701

>>11276692
>That being said, the retarded and insane are surely less conscious than others.
The ancients thought that insane people were conscious on a higher level than normies. Plato said that true love is a form of madness.

>> No.11276706

>>11274317
Lady Bird is not good but it's better than anything that hack Bergman ever did. You type and think like a quasiwoke pseud.

>> No.11276715
File: 133 KB, 630x428, GoyaLosDisparates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11276715

>>11274100
Stop believing in teleology, it's dumb. Consider reading Lasch, Gray and Stuart Hampshire.

"As a liberal, I think I ought to expect to be found superficial by a large part of humanity, both at home and abroad. One needs to see that one’s own way of life and habits of speech and of thought not only seem wrong to large populations, but can be repugnant in very much the same way in which alien habits of eating, or alien sexual customs, can be repugnant."
(Hampshire)

Get used to it. People like you (and me) are an absolute minority, and always will be among tailless apes.

>>11276322

Stop taking Jordan Peterson seriously, it's an unbelievably moronic thing to do. Dostoevsky wasn't a pamphleteer, and shouldn't be read as one. I have nothing to recommend to you, it's already too late.

>> No.11276718
File: 41 KB, 480x360, (you).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11276718

>>11276708
>>11276715

>> No.11276721

>>11273915
This is an obvious truth of society,
"Useless eaters" is what they call them.
Followers, sheep, normies, whatever you want to call them; theres billions of them on the planet.
People whom have no soul. Long abandoned by any form of light, now either living out of deviousness or trying to cope with the dubious amount of children they had at a young age, or both.

>> No.11276722

>>11276120
This thread is entirely pathological.

If you would agree that consciousness is somewhat like a spectrum, with elephants and dolphins being farther back than us, yet still clearly conscious in some way, it's not so unreasonable to guess that maybe within the human species itself there is a subset of the spectrum of consciousness. However, I would be skeptical of any speculation beyond that. You may like to believe that Newton was more conscious than your average homo, but that would discount a multitude of other potential reasons for thought and behavior, like >>11276682 says.

Maybe it is even possible to train someone to be more conscious. Maybe Koko the gorilla gained some higher order thought patters after learning sign language. But, to assume a bunch of shit beyond that about something we know almost nothing about is a typical pseud move.

>> No.11276726

>>11276722
No, you don't understand, what makes me more conscious than those filthy normies is namedropping concepts from Lacan and acting like I live in a cyberpunk novel.

>> No.11276747 [DELETED] 

>>11276722
>This thread is entirely pathological.
No kidding. I was reading through it and the amount of ego on display is really astounding given the topic.
>>11276715
>Get used to it. People like you (and me) are an absolute minority, and always will be among tailless apes.
Posters like the one above can't see how adolescent they remain in their misanthropy. Though I'm sure he'll have some very winning response to this to show me how pithy and dismissive he can be.

It's cries for help and hurt feelings all the way down. Even these smarter posters are still falling the same old ego traps that your average person does, but now they have some flashy new justifications for doing so. Progress has been made!

>> No.11276756

>>11276722
>This thread is entirely pathological.
No kidding. I was reading through it and the amount of ego on display is really astounding given the topic.
>>11276715
>Get used to it. People like you (and me) are an absolute minority, and always will be among tailless apes.
Posters like the one above can't see how adolescent they remain in their misanthropy. Though I'm sure he'll have some very winning response to this to show me how pithy and dismissive he can be.

It's cries for help and hurt feelings all the way down. Even these smarter posters are still falling for the same old ego traps that your average person does, but now they have some flashy new justifications for doing so. Progress has been made!

>> No.11276766
File: 1.04 MB, 1427x2200, cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11276766

>>11276756
Keep smearing shit on the walls, savage.

>> No.11276772

>>11276766
I haven't the first clue what you're trying to say with this post. Or it this (quite literally) just a shitpost?

>> No.11276776

>>11276772
*is

>> No.11276782

>>11276772
It's like watching a beagle trying to listen to classical music.

>> No.11276789

>>11274100
I am not sure this is how evolution works.

>> No.11276795

>>11276782
These waspish bants of yours are pretty intense. I'm sure somewhere there's an old baroness who'd smirk and nod slightly in approval.

>> No.11276800

>>11276795
>I'm sure somewhere there's an old baroness who'd smirk and nod slightly in approval.

That's one more than I was expecting.

>> No.11276813
File: 93 KB, 700x500, Mimmo-Jodice-Mediterraneo-05.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11276813

>>11274048

I also had the feeling that he was describing consciousness as the unificatory process that is at the base of everything. That for him the ultimate, ineffable principle is something akin to consciousness.
His system is based on mental experience reflected on every level and becoming progressively weaker, as light emanated from a center. At the level of the soul, you have what we usually call our consciousness, which consists in the soul "temporalizing" things, i.e. fragmenting the forms (thoughts of the Intellect) in time. That is why the unificatory experience of consciousness on the level of the soul is akin to the Kantian idea of referring all representations to a single subject: everything exists in time a space in relation to the soul, because the soul, being weaker than the intellect, needs to pose its objects of thought as separated from itself. Nonetheless, the Soul still refers these objects to itself as a subject, i.e. it unifies them in a temporal sequence and orders them in space. The only way in which the soul can be unified and perceive itself as a subject is through exerting some kind of unifying activity, but to do so it poses its objects as separated from itself (or "in front of itself") so that it can think them in relation to itself. This is the maximum level of unification the soul can reach. Consciousness is the soul noticing this unifying activity as it is reflected in the objects it poses externally and referring it to itself.
In the Intellect we enter instead an atemporal dimension, where this distinction between subject and object is unnecessary. What the soul poses in sequence and as separated from itself is instead united in one eternally present point. With no necessity of temporal sequences, there is no necessity for thinking about a subject and an object. The thought and the thinking activity overlap each other: they become the same thing. You experience everything at the same time, in complete transparency. Now, this is not a "higher level of consciousness" - this is true consciousness, namely, the mental activity from which our own mental activity derives. We could go as far as to say that the two are not really different from each other, and that the activity of the soul really is the same as the activity of the intellect (unifying mental activity) manifesting in a temporal perspective. This activity is depending on the activity of the Intellect just as the image in a mirror is depending on the real image - once the real image cease to exist, the replica will cease as well. But the replica is "partial" and bidimensional (fragmented) while the real object is complete and whole.
This is a bit difficult to explain and I could expand on some point if I have not been clear, but the basic thought is that our experience of consciousness as referring all representations to a subject building spatio-temporal experience is the manifestation of a lower level of an atemporal mental activity.

>> No.11277241

>>11273915
What is monad exactly

>> No.11277415

>>11273915
>Are some people more conscious than others?
No, consciousness is life. There is one consciousnesses and it experiences the world through form. Plants animals and fungus are all part of the one consciousnesses, our experience only makes us feel that we are seperate because we cannot see reality. (No lifeform sees 'reality', only what evolution gave us in order to survive. If you could see reality, large space between atoms, you would not have the capability of surviving)

>> No.11277528

>>11276656
Conscious of themselves, of what they are doing as they are doing it and why they are doing it, the motives behind their actions, all that has conditioned them to get to where they are now, conscious of their own existence and of the fact that they don’t necessarily know the meaning of it.

Gurdjieff is a great rec for a lot of people in this thread, his idea being most people, even extremely intelligent people, are essentially unconscious automatons because they don’t (or rarely) partake in self-observation and self-remembering. Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous is a good intro. If Gurdjieff’s idea of self-remembering and that most people don’t do it 99% of the time were to get into the philosophical mainstream, or at least keep growing somewhat larger, there’d be a genuinely significant transformation of humanity, in my opinion.

>> No.11277546

>>11277241

A monoid in its category of endofunctors.

>> No.11278846

Yeah for sure, I'm fairly certain conciousness is related to intelligence. I've known people with 155IQs and people with 55IQs which is quite the gap. Very unintelligent people seem to be less aware of what's going on around them and just less aware of everything. However it's easy to confuse their inability to communicate with their lack of consciousness.

There also seems to be certain brain conditions and drugs that can alter consciousness. I.E. Depressants like alcohol to lower consciousness, Stimulants to raise it.

Autism often comes with hypersensitivity and hyposensitivity, but lean towards hypersensitivity, which causes information processing issues and actions like looking away from the face. They can be more conscious of what's going on around them, like noticing a subtle noise and picking up on what others would not, or they can be less conscious due to being overwhelmed by information. There's many mental conditions that can make you extremely conscious of specific things.

I think it's more accurate to say we experience consciousness in different ways, than that some people are more or less conscious than others. Some people are more or less conscious than others, but I believe there is a lot of variation in our consciousness independent of that.

Posts like this are pure pseudointellectualism >>11273988 rooted in nothing more than a desire to make fun of people on /lit/.

>> No.11278869

>>11278846
>>11277528
It also strikes me that /lit/ is defining "conciousness" as introspection. That's really just one form of consciousness that /lit/ users are likely to be stronger in than most people. I would say the average /lit/ user is very conscious of themselves, but maybe a bit blind and not very conscious of other people on average.

>> No.11279229 [DELETED] 

>>11278869
Well, for >>11277528, Gurdjieff doesn’t define self-observation and self-remembering as introspection. In fact, he says introspection is often mechanical narcissistic navel-gazing, if you were suggesting that self-observation and self-remembering sound like “introspection”. A person can mechanically introspect just like they can mechanically read and write books or mechanically write a meal.

>> No.11279302

>>11278869 #
Well, for >>11277528 (You) #, Gurdjieff doesn’t define self-observation and self-remembering as introspection. In fact, he says introspection is often mechanical narcissistic navel-gazing, if you were suggesting that self-observation and self-remembering sound like “introspection”. A person can mechanically introspect just like they can mechanically read and write books or mechanically eat a meal.

>> No.11279325

>>11274119
>I would say it is the (best of) /pol/ types right now who are more conscious than these bovine leftists you see everywhere

Imagine unironically thinking this. /pol/fags are the true bugmen.

>> No.11279386

>>11273915
I'd say no, because everyone is fundamentally oblivious to his own traps, but then again reading the responses to this thread I'm so overwhelmed with disgust at all of these fake intellectuals and this badly disguised resentiment that I would say that the people who are less conscious than others are probably the ones who think they are more conscious than others. A remarkable cul de sac.

>> No.11280899

>>11276009
If anything i feel like 4chan has more of these kinds of people than most of the people I meet day to day. Part of that is the dogmatic culture of the website though. People just spam their 'objective fact' opinions trying to feel intellectually superior to everyone else. Are there any similar social networks without this vibe? 4chan is slowly making me want to kill myself.

>> No.11280910

>>11280899
It doesn't always you can find more than one person willing to have a rational debate, yet, most are busy on /pol/ lately.

>> No.11280927

>>11280910
Yeah thats true there are the odd few.
Are you saying those people are now on /pol/ debating rationally or that most people are too hung up on the /pol/ shtick to debate rationally (or something else)

>> No.11281886

>>11280899
> 4chan is slowly making me want to kill myself.

I was literally having panic attacks and spells of depression reading 4chan earlier. So I basically walked for hours instead and it stopped.

One day we're going to do scientific research on social media and conclude that it's worse for you than soft drugs. I've spent over half my life on the shit though. All of it is terrible and the only responsible use of it is sparingly.

>> No.11282126

>>11275989
sounds more like two people kept having children without anyones permission if you know what I mean... low and behold 5k years of reproduction will lead to an exponential increase to the number of units there are.

>> No.11282138

>>11276667
exactly at which point propaganda plays a most important role in the strategy building of that 'loyalty', it was more a fear of subjugation.

>> No.11282141

>>11281886
you should never use social media, imcluding image boards, this is more evil than pissing away your life with alcohol or heroin

>> No.11282172
File: 4 KB, 300x300, approve_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11282172

>>11276120
Good god yes, especially when they began the attack on media devices. They're cheap and here so I use them. I'm no less creative or introspective than I ever was. In fact, I write more, I draw more, I compose more. I've encountered ideas I'd have never caught in the wild.

You have a number of anons who live without balance assuming we all do while condemning others for lacking "empathy," all the while they've mangled the personalities of the populace to fit their high-falutin definition.

Or maybe I'm just a shallow turd addicted to my devices. Ah well, beats famine.

>> No.11282188
File: 1.01 MB, 1280x800, 'Black' Tea vs Green.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11282188

>>11276813
This is a very good summary, your ability to relay this message is greater than mine, but I understood you whole heartedly, thank you. Fascinating stuff, life, eh? Now we must push on with this, would visualization of an image lead to manifestation of said object?
Having unified or "returned" a fragment (yourself) to the original source consciousness puts you at the seat of the creator-mobile once again, no? Once there, what do friend?

>> No.11282227

>>11276120
What if I believe everybody is stupid? I understand my own consciousness is impaired but so is everybody elses. To me this best explains how I can be so stupid yet be able to so profoundly see the stupidity that exists in others. I see their blind spots and they see mine.

>> No.11282232

People on /lit/ are probably more introverted and neurotic than others if that's what you're asking

>> No.11282241
File: 76 KB, 800x1131, uMGOY3y.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11282241

>>11273915
From a very simplistic, relative point of view, the answer would be "yes", OP.

The problem is, however, is that even this point of view is still contingent on arbitrary psychological conditions ("I've exposed myself to more eastern philosophy than Bernard, therefore I'm more enlightened than Bernard") and as a result doesn't actually mean anything from the point of undefiled consciousness Itself.

From an ultimate, totally-generative point of view, there has never been an "I" and a "Thou" for one to compare, no matter if in terms of intelligence, artistic capability, or even conscious awareness itself. And to begin thinking so is to open yourself up to all sorts of nasty things, such as the oppressive caste system in India, to the barbaric enslavement of Africans during the colonial period, or the slaughter of countless innocents by Japanese warriors following an extremely bastardized version of Zen metaphysics.

So, from my rather limited perspective, my advice to thee OP would be "you're asking to the wrong question." Worry not whether others are as "conscious" as you or not; instead, focus on how you can refine and transcend your own consciousness, always.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action