CVLT

[Anonymous No.11625356]

I think there is an imperative to create an ideal self.
There are no genes for specific personality traits; that isn't how genes work. Along the lines of how humans tend to act it's mostly 'nurture' that lead us to become who we are.
An impactful event (eg nurture) can completely alter who we are. This is no more or less fake than who we were before. We can change.

Rather than outside events lead us to unconsciously change, I'd propose we do our change consciously along the lines of self interest.

[Anonymous No.11625362]

What do you mean by "self"?

[Anonymous No.11625372]

>>11625356
We all have to acknowledge for ourself, that we are God.

[Anonymous No.11625429]

>>11625362
Our experience. Pic covers the foundational axiom.

[Anonymous No.11625432]

>>11625372
A small, though growing aspect of a greater God.

Amen

[Anonymous No.11625784]

>>11625429
>>11625429

That post is very shallow. It halts its inquiry at agreeable axioms which are in truth arbitrary.

>There is no way to prove anything we experience is real

What is meant here by ''real''? A determined case? A consistency in phenomena and its experience? We experience illusions, this makes illusions real as affects. Illusion is necessary for common experience, which itself is a multiplicity of modes of awareness. But of course, what is meant here is dasein, but this ''thereness'' itself requires a multiplicity in phenomena, for it to act as this vector of experience. The seeming point here is that we can not trust our experience of being a concrete reality, but that we can trust experience itself *as* a concrete reality. But that experience is dependent precisely on phenomena, which is in doubt.

>The only provable thing is that we are experiencing.

Now, continuing from the above; If what we experience is in doubt, and if our very experience comes from and depends on what we experience, then experience itself is also in doubt. As experience is in its very nature--- dependent.

>Some experiences are good and others are bad

As affects, this depends on the assemblage which harbors the vector of experience, and its condition as it relates to the phenomena which it is experiencing and is being affected by. This forms the teleology of any given being, e.g. you're not hugging a thermal vent at the bottom of the ocean right now due to the condition of your body.

>The imperative is toward an overall good experience. That's the point of life and the only answer to the only thing we can be sure of

As mentioned before. The primary issue here is the relegation of epistemology to experience in and for itself. This entire thesis, ends up arguing against itself, i.e. that the affects derived from phenomena are now used *as* axioms, and no longer experience itself, which remains a nothing, without the experience *of* phenomena from which it seems to be derived.

>''There is nothing in goodness above pleasure and there is nothing evil below pain''

Pleasure and pain are often, and easily sublimated into each other. The thesis makes it entirely subjective, which can manifest as a collective manifestation, driven by component desire, which of course still results in conflict.

In truth, and criticism aside. The only objective description that can be inferred from all this is something close to Spinoza. There is no deontological point here, rather just teleology. I.e. subjects exist in some fashion, they suffer and feel pleasure in some form, and intersubjective conflict arises as does subject-phenomenal conflict.

[Anonymous No.11625810]

>>11625356


>I'd propose we do our change consciously along the lines of self interest.

This already occurs, involuntarily. There is of course, more detail here. Where do you think your desires and interests come from?

>I think there is an imperative to create an ideal self.

As a necessity? No. Unless it occurs. Even then, a fantasy as such is liable to change.


>There are no genes for specific personality traits; that isn't how genes work.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29152902

>Along the lines of how humans tend to act it's mostly 'nurture' that lead us to become who we are.

Mostly? What does that mean? You can have a person with APD, their neurology is absolutely determined. But some, if they are not abused in their formative years etc; can develop into 'productive members of a society'', but they will *still* exhibit APD personality traits, no matter what.

[Anonymous No.11626057]

>>11625356
>There are no genes for specific personality traits; that isn't how genes work. Along the lines of how humans tend to act it's mostly 'nurture' that lead us to become who we are.
gonna need a citation for that
p sure it's both (linked in a cybernetic feedback loop)
>Rather than outside events lead us to unconsciously change, I'd propose we do our change consciously along the lines of self interest.
so chaos magick?
>>11625429
disgusting cartesian
needs to read heidegger desu

[Anonymous No.11626073]

>>11625810
>involuntarily
The the point of what I said is that our personality is created so we should try to do that creating intentionally / voluntarily / consciously.

>
As a necessity? No. Unless it occurs. Even then, a fantasy as such is liable to change.

Can you rephrase this

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29152902
There's no 1 to 1 relationship with genes to personality, at most they can make you more inclined to certain personality traits.

>But some, if they are not abused in their formative years etc
Again, reiterating the point of what I'm saying: if there are circumstances that would make them develop something, then there are circumstances that could get rid of it.

Taking it a step further: if people can involuntarily reduce symptoms of something, then I'd assume they could voluntarily eliminate them completely

Contemporary mental health still believes schizophrenia isn't curable.

Anyway, just to keep it simple: No matter how little modern science has proven things to be dictated by nurture, the imperative is to take ownership of that margin and create the best outcome that we can within it.

If you think for example developing full on APD isn't any different than only showing symptoms related to it: while I can argue against that (indeed there's an argument in here that already has), I don't feel like doing this with you.

There's a theme in the threads I make to constantly reiterate what I've already said into words people can identify with, but that's tiring. The goal is to connect with like minds rather than debate.

>>11625784
I'm going to ignore the first to points and defer to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

>As affects, this depends on the assemblage which harbors the vector of experience, and its condition as it relates to the phenomena which it is experiencing and is being affected by. This forms the teleology of any given being
Can you restate this?

>As mentioned before. The primary issue here is the relegation of epistemology to experience in and for itself. This entire thesis, ends up arguing against itself, i.e. that the affects derived from phenomena are now used *as* axioms, and no longer experience itself, which remains a nothing, without the experience *of* phenomena from which it seems to be derived.
Wow can you please just speak in concrete terms? Despite the fact that you seemed to use "affect" in place of "effect" I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a coherent argument in there but can you rewrite this? (note I'm admitting I have no idea what you're saying rather than build strawmen). Can you just speak in concrete language? Like an 8th grader.

[Anonymous No.11626157]

>>11626057
The burden of proof would be on proving that a certain set of genes create a given personality trait. We haven't found more than a high correlation, while nurture (consciously or unconsciously) decides whether or not we actually develop them.

>chaos magick?
That may be a method but I have no idea what you mean by this. Finding a method is definitely why I made the thread.

>disgusting cartesian....
To reword the premise: would you rather have a life you hate or a life you loved? The answer is self evident; no matter which, what you'd rather do will ultimately make you the [happiest], so do that.
(except I reduce 'love' vs 'hate' the net-experience, so even if you'd rather have a life you 'hate' that's clearly the life you 'love' - though I would argue that getting pleasure out of pain for pain's sake is illogical)


>it's both
That's what I meant by "along the lines of how humans tend to act", where there's no reason to believe we can land anywhere within those blurry lines while genes dictate those lines.

[Anonymous No.11626170]

>>11626157
>where there's no reason to believe we can land anywhere within those blurry lines
There's no reason to believe we can't** land anywhere within those blurry lines

Typo

[Anonymous No.11626235]

>>11626073

>The goal is to connect with like minds rather than debate.

Well, debate or dialectic is unavoidable, even with like minds, with whom a feedback will emerge that still produces some development of ideas, no? Words are also faulty, and we can not know how like we are, unless debate occurs.

>As a necessity? No. Unless it occurs. Even then, a fantasy as such is liable to change.
>Can you rephrase this

There is no necessity (imperative) to create an ideal self. The ideal self is an assemblage (operational aggregate), a fantasy which is liable to change. To add, it can often be a detriment, e.g. Narcissistic personality disorder. And even neurotical pathologies. The ideal self first must manifest as just this, an ideality, which is often incompatible with actual possibilities. My point, it is not a necessity, nor is it a good ethical system.


>As affects, this depends on the assemblage which harbors the vector of experience, and its condition as it relates to the phenomena which it is experiencing and is being affected by. This forms the teleology of any given being
>Can you restate this?

An anthropic example: You have a body with a specific constitution, the environment effects it in specific ways, specific to its construction. This body harbors a point of ontology (your experience) this is also affected by the environment (phenomena). This dialectic forms the teleology of any given body. Think, natural selection or something. (though this example is more complex, having to do with gene transfer and sexual selection etc). Your mode of experience, and experience itself depends on the condition of the body and its technological extensions. Experience itself is the same as it relates to phenomena which it is experiencing.


>As mentioned before. The primary issue here is the relegation of epistemology to experience in and for itself. This entire thesis, ends up arguing against itself, i.e. that the affects derived from phenomena are now used *as* axioms, and no longer experience itself, which remains a nothing, without the experience *of* phenomena from which it seems to be derived.
>Wow can you please just speak in concrete terms? Despite the fact that you seemed to use "affect" in place of "effect" I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a coherent argument in there but can you rewrite this? (note I'm admitting I have no idea what you're saying rather than build strawmen). Can you just speak in concrete language? Like an 8th grader.


>We can not prove that anything we experience is real
>We can only prove that we are experiencing
>Experience is a fundamental truth
>Some experiences are good and some are bad

The last segment is what breaks down the entire scheme. Since these experiences come from phenomena (in synthesis with the subject's condition), which is immediately in doubt, from the first statement. If only experience is real, and what is experienced is in doubt. Then good & bad are in doubt.

[Anonymous No.11626244]

>>11626170
>>11626157
Also, and to bump the thread again: to take it a step further, since we by and large land within those lines (of how humans tend to act) unconsciously / involuntarily, I'd assume we could get relatively far from those lines if we created ourselves consciously

[Anonymous No.11626256]

>>11626157
>burden of proof
lies on any hypothesis just as much as on it's opposite, it is a debating tool, not a scientific/philosophical principle
>no reason to believe we can't land anywhere within those blurry lines
that's fine
>That may be a method but I have no idea what you mean by this. Finding a method is definitely why I made the thread.
check out robert anton wilson
to make an extremely crude reduction, chaos magick makes worldviews/perspectives into something of an outfit which can be swapped out whenever it best advantages you

[Anonymous No.11626270]

>>11626235

Cont.

>The the point of what I said is that our personality is created so we should try to do that creating intentionally / voluntarily / consciously.

Where there's a will there's a way. Frankly I don't believe in free will, but that is an unrelated topic. But yeah nor problem with this. You an condition yourself through various practices and become a better person.


>I'm going to ignore the first to points and defer to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

Illusions are real in the sense that they have a power to affect the mind, be it a brain in a vat or not. I don't think I can say anything else, maybe reread my posts.

[Anonymous No.11626560]

>>11626235
>...My point, it is not a necessity, nor is it a good ethical system.
There was more than one strawman in that argument. On my part, maybe 'ideal' isn't a great word because it implies a kind of specificity that may not be possible to determine.
So: There's an imperative to create a self that achieves a net (or generally) positive experience.
Reduced: there's an imperative to create a generally positive experience, where "positive" is inherently better than "negative"
Please see response to "disgusting cartesian":
>>11626157
quote/
>To reword the premise: would you rather have a life you hate or a life you loved? The answer is self evident; no matter which, what you'd rather do will ultimately make you the [happiest], so do that.
(except I reduce 'love' vs 'hate' the net-experience, so even if you'd rather have a life you 'hate' that's clearly the life you 'love')
/quote

>An anthropic example:...
Let's reduce this further:
>You have a body with a specific constitution, the environment effects it in specific ways, specific to its construction
We're ultimately talking about the experience here, rather than just the body
>You have a body with a specific constitution, the environment effects it in specific ways, specific to its construction
So we're again talking about the experience being effected by the environment. And when we say 'environment' we really mean general [nurture] because we can affect ourselves internally - and the crux of this is change.
So our experience, which is influenced by our genes, changes within the boundaries that our genes allow
The extent to which our genes influence our placement within the boundaries that our genes allow is unknown + the boundaries themselves are also unknown.
Then you say experience itself is dependent on the body (no real technological extensions as of yet) and experience is dependent on what is being experienced.

So the former, we can consciously dictate with future tech; the latter, we can dictate whenever we decide.

I'm focusing on the latter.

>[next part]
Ok, I get what you're saying now.
I can't prove what I'm experiencing is real, but the proof that I am experiencing is inherent in the experience. So I don't know whether I'm actually typing on a keyboard right now but I do know that I am currently experiencing myself typing on a keyboard.

You probably could've figured this out yourself

>>11626256
I didn't like Angel Tech

>>11626270
Yeah everything is very likely predetermined and yeah it's best ignored unless it's being talked about in a vacuum.

We seem to be in general agreement. Now the question of how to become a better person and what that even means.

[Anonymous No.11626578]

>>11625356
Realize the chaste ideal.
You become the best version of yourself when you renounce sexual arousal and activity.

[Anonymous No.11626617]

>>11626578
>avoid the downsides of a good thing by avoiding a good thing
That's the definition of throwing the baby out with the bath water

[Anonymous No.11626684]

>>11626617
>a good thing
Heroin brings pleasure. That does not make it a "good thing" or logical to inject.
There is a neuro-endocrine-physiological toll to be paid for sexual activity. The worse penalty is squandering motivational resources on an activity that accomplishes nothing. Ejaculation causes prolactin release, which is anatagonistic to dopamine which leaves you unmotivated and tired. You've accomplish nothing. You soon enough become a slave to daily if not more frequent release. This isn't maximizing you're potential, it's mediocritizing it.

[Anonymous No.11626750]

>>11626560
>We seem to be in general agreement. Now the question of how to become a better person and what that even means.

Personally, I have found no universal answer, and I even think that universal approaches to this are damaging. We are of course, speaking of one person, ''you'' etc. Every creature has their lot in existence, their personal pathologies and capacities. There is a multitude of things we could say about this, but I find it to be an individual and unique ordeal. The inquiry becomes complicated, as it relates to specific intersubjective relations a person exists in, and their own conditions. One type of advice or book or whatever, will aid someone and do nothing for another.

>There was more than one strawman in that argument

I don't see any. Just an explanation based on my inference. Every potential you have, resides in your own condition. This is the limit of your actualization.

>there's an imperative to create a generally positive experience, where "positive" is inherently better than "negative"

Sure, desire is inherent to bodies, even astral bodies lol.

>We're ultimately talking about the experience here, rather than just the body

You can not separate the two. Nor can you separate experience in itself from phenomena.

> because we can affect ourselves internally - and the crux of this is change.

Yes, and how? Through representation, ideation etc. This too can swerve off into other topics. Self-thinking thought and all that, also the odd synthesis between unconscious and conscious affect.

>Then you say experience itself is dependent on the body (no real technological extensions as of yet) and experience is dependent on what is being experienced.

Can you see in infra red? No. But we have mechanical extensions to detect it, this is what I mean. Our knowledge is not merely limited to out body, but also that which it can produce, etc.

>So I don't know whether I'm actually typing on a keyboard right now but I do know that I am currently experiencing myself typing on a keyboard.

That is my point, you can not separate experience from the experienced, and retain anything you can make an axiom. Aside from, like, Śūnyatā.
Experience itself is by necessity illusory as it is tied to that which is experienced and the thing which experiences it. We have no access to the thing in itself, as Kant would put it.

So, like I said in the other post:
>Illusions are real in the sense that they have a power to affect the mind, be it a brain in a vat or not.

Experience itself is not a concrete reality, as it arises from Experiencing. It is *dependent*. It does not matter if you are actually typing on a keyboard, or some apparatus is making your brain in a jar think it is. If we assume you are not in fact a brain in a jar, the same would *still* apply. Experience itself is illusory; not to say that its not ''real'', in the sense that it is a simulacrum, but that it must be as such by its very nature.

[Anonymous No.11626762]

>>11626750

Cont.

In fact, I could take the entire premise, and claim that non-experience is fundamentally preferable to experience, and that experience itself is empty of inherent existence. Much like (most forms of) Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.11626786]

>>11626617
SAUCE NOW

[Anonymous No.11626808]

>>11626786
absolutely ἀηδία

[Anonymous No.11626863]

>>11626762
Experience itself is based in inexperience, the thing in itself, so they're the same concept but one is imposed a hierarchy in society and therefore the rebelling against experience, or philognosis, is seen as revelatory when it's just the bland cousin. As for essentially solipsism, I'm uncertain. I only know Hegels argument that if the Absolute has a superstructure and is logical then our mind can follow that superstructure and thus we can become experience that is real to the world.

[Anonymous No.11626900]

>>11626863
>the Absolute has a superstructure and is logical then our mind can follow that superstructure and thus we can become experience that is real to the world.

Well, then we have being dissipating into non-being.

>we can become experience that is real to the world.

Not sure what is meant here.

>Experience itself is based in inexperience, the thing in itself, so they're the same concept

What, ''all determination is negation''?

>but one is imposed a hierarchy in society and therefore the rebelling against experience, or philognosis, is seen as revelatory when it's just the bland cousin.

What, non-dualism?

[Anonymous No.11626924]

>>11626900
>being and non-being
arbitrary categories

The Absolute is the universe and if our mind matches it the Absolute becomes as real as our experience, thus equal.

>... negation?"
Clarify?

>...non-dualism?
Just looked up non-dualism and it's totally correct but what trite shite. The idea that experience is as worthless as non-experience is correct but highly lame, thus I don't subscribe to it.

[Anonymous No.11626984]

>>11626924
>The Absolute is the universe
>and if our mind matches it

Does your mind not exist within the absolute then?

>as real as our experience

What?

>>Experience itself is based in inexperience, the thing in itself, so they're the same concept

Never-mind, can you clarify the initial statement?

Are you the Plotinus poster guy?

[Anonymous No.11627005]

>>11626984
>part of Absolute
Depends on our lens, no? If we start from ourselves, our surest part, we are excluded from the Absolute as we can reorder information within the Absolute that cannot exist within the Absolute other than our experience. From the perspective of the Absolute, we're subsumed in it, but we don't have confidence in this lens.

>What?
The Absolute is not real in terms of our confidence in it, however, it is real when matched within consciousness

>initial statement
That is the initial

I'm the fella that needs his sauce

[Anonymous No.11627017]

>>11627005

What do you mean by 'confidence '?

I mean, clarify this please:
''Experience itself is based in inexperience, the thing in itself, so they're the same concept ''