Before life, nothing mattered. There was no meaning. No value. No emotion. No thought. Noone to observe. No one to name things. No one to care. Just rock and water.
Life is the 1 from zero. Life allows for logic, math, concepts, representations, language, technology, emotions, meaning, and all the rest that we fight for.
Life without death is boundless like the universe.
If life is the first thing that mattered, then death is the second.
Without death, life would not know loss.
Death creates competition, speed, and endurance.
Knowledge of death creates urgency, planning, and consideration.
Death forces procreation and adaptation.
Without death, there would be only very old single-celled bacteria. Maybe not? Maybe, there are other reasons to reproduce?
I have a deep fear that I will die and there will be nothing left of me to live on. Something that might impact and affect future humans in a way that validates some of the things I've accomplished.
I can imagine a world where I am known and well regarded. A world where my personal impression lives on after I die, like the many famous people that I know and continue to learn about after their deaths. Ideally, I would die having made an impact on the world and in so doing give myself a modicum of infamy.
I am just realizing that this ideation is most likely the result of a lifetime among televisions. There have always been famous people. Aristocrats, actors, musicians, royals, politicians, clergymen, military heroes, and the like have always existed in large enough agricultural societies. Even without agriculture, tribal peoples would tell stories of heroes and gods and spirits that one would look up to.
While all these people represent some kind of transcendence from the poor, infirm or otherwise lowly existence that the majority inhabit, these roles were not typically within the reach of the masses. Children in the 17th century were not hopeful that they would become anything other than something close to what their father did. They might have wondered at stories of heroes and gods but were not subjected to the mundane infamy of the modern world.
Today, the world's opinions are on display for the world. Experts and novices teaching beside each other and with no oversight. Crazies and geniuses and everyone in between showing us "what they've got!" "Cash me outside," has left its mark on the world and it is hard not to feel that if someone as low as those that are featured on Jerry Springer or Maury Povich are making their marks in some small ways. If we consider anyone who is online socially as capable of generating fame then fame itself is a measure of potential infamy. Extended fame is really the goal of online expression because if your mark lasts then it is assumed that your mark is meaningful.
The future of education had better include how to use the internet to your advantage or else people will be swallowed up in its web of influence and exploitation. It can also be a comforting couch of convenience and decadence. Everything at your hand and your whole life stuck in the world as a set of profiles and visual media.
But what about the futility of fame? In time all information is degraded and eventually lost then why is it so appealing? I think it is related to the initial need for procreation. Fame's appeal is the same appeal that comes to the deep desire to have our genes live on in our progeny. More specifically it is intertwined with the need to stand out and ascend in a hierarchy where the higher the status the more likely the individual will successfully mate and see their offspring live on. So, it all comes down to sex, like so many behaviors.
For one that prides themself on their ability to express themself, it seems like a failure to not do so publicly. To show one's self to the world is a badge of honor and to show up in a trending list means the eyes of the world are upon you. For good or bad you have been seen. Like in Avatar, we just want to be seen. I just want to be seen. To be seen and appreciated. To be validated by the world. For the world to look at you and give you an uplifting nod.
The need for attention comes from at least two areas, cultural influences and a lack of bonding with parents. I do not want to blame all parents as for some the need for attention can never be satiated, not even by those with well adjusted and affectionate parents. I do not believe myself to be within that camp but I do not care to blame anyone for my self diagnosed issues in a perhaps failed attempt at self psychoanalysis. My need for attention might just be due to my lack of identifying a mainstream vocation that I find satisfying and therefore must look to other means for purpose, namely expressing myself and hoping that someone finds it valuable or at the least interesting.
I do think that the greater one's desire for fame the greater their need for validation. This may be due to a lack of acceptance and validation from childhood or it could be due to a predisposition toward narcissism or any number of things.
Living in a culture where thousands and thousands of people make a living expressing their opinions on the internet makes it seem like if your not making a living expressing yourself you're working too hard and are just another "cog" in the wheel.
I have no children. I have no real money.
The only reason to feel bad about these facts is that I have a desire for these things. I am not sure which one I want more but I do know that some parts of me feel that children and money are a necessary part of seeing myself as an actualized person. I have manufactured a typical American fantasy despite the fact that my parents failed to represent but somehow has been engrained as a norm. Although they both do have a decent amount of money. At least they do now.
My father never made much money on his own and I know that a great deal of my desire for money has to do with my desire to not be like my father but he did marry two women who have been able to acquire quite a lot of money respectively. In fact his current wife, not my mother, probably makes more money than his second wife, meaning that he traded up in a completely lame and unplanned way. Hopefully unplanned.
If you haven't done something notable enough to make some local media feature or participated in a viral video or gained enough subscribers to exist as an independent contractor then you aren't that interesting. If you aren't interesting then what's the point?
Maybe these are the worries of someone whose life is too easy to warrant any real discomfort or discipline. Maybe this is a cultural impression that I am simply orienting myself to. Maybe it is simply pride and narcissism that I engage in and should work toward feeling contentment in the simple act of existence and stop seeking fame for the sake of superficial attention. Maybe the monk that seeks enlightenment from a lack of desire is on the road toward enlightenment. I doubt it. I think the real answer is acceptance and balance.
In the creation of expressive art, one should start with themselves and the personal expression and then see what happens when they share such things. If it is meaningful to the self then it might resonate and find value in others. The real key is not putting the cart before the horse, putting the desire for validation before the expression. The idea that fame creates legitimacy is erroneous and simplistic. No one is legitimate or illegitimate. Value is subjective which means that it depends on the evaluator. Maybe a happy life is living based on one's internally generated values instead of trying to adapt to everyone else's idea of
This doesn't mean that one shouldn't cater to others for the sake of money or some other end. There are plenty of people who do not seek fame or validation through social interaction. People who exist with no desire to express themselves to the world and feel no malaise when the world doesn't care about them. Family, friends, work, and hobbies do not require an extended interaction with the outside world and hold deep meaning for those content with such activities. Maybe those that seek attention should remember not to neglect the simple satisfactions that accrue when one attends to those around them.
There is also a kind of dual outcome to fame which is when the endeavors that result in fame are originally intended to help others. This might be in the realms of education, innovation and personal expression of all sorts. The idea that one's public expressions are put out into the world for the sake of others. This is both selfish and selfless. Someone has to have some sense of self-worth and confidence to think that they have something to offer others and this desire, while seemingly noble, has the added bonus of attracting attention and potential fame. It is the most righteous fame because it hides behind the selfless deed and makes one a kind of saint but it should not be forgotten that those that seek to help others often know that the result may be that of acclaim.
This is not a bad thing in that if there were no positive results from helping other people would have little incentive to do so and therefor those that help others should be given public acclaim. This is really only useful if the public knows the difference between what provides actual help and what acts are designed to give the impression of selflessness. The real challenge to audiences, in a world of infinite choices, is to not waste attention on worthless or deceitful people or to call them out. Now, this requires a certain amount of intelligence and control and ultimately up to the individual based on their subjective values and knowledge.
Maturing is more a matter of accepting yourself instead of fighting self-imposed and needless idealism. Instead of constantly judging myself against the achievements of others I should simply continue working on doing what makes me feel fulfilled, meaningful and happy.
I am not in control of others. I am barely in control of myself.
The only way to control others is through force, everything else is a negotiation.
When I listen to certain people prognosticate about what we all are doing or should be doing I can't help but become curious about what they mean by "we". "We" is a collective noun that takes on different forms depending on the context it is used in. A Christian can address a group of Christians and say the word "we" and it is to whom they are referring. Namely, Christians. But if that same Christian was in a room full of atheists and used the word "we" he might be referring to his fellow Christians or he might be appealing to a more general "we" as in "we are all humans," or "we are all Americans".
The term "we" requires an assumption on the part of both the speaker and listener which offers two opportunities to misinterpret the meaning of the word. The speaker assumes that the listener knows which group they are referring to and the listener assumes they know what group the speaker is referring to. Both parties may be wrong in their assumptions. This is just another reason why clarification is important and why using vague, abstract or lazy terms is problematic.
Another issue with using the word "we" is that if the group being referred to is large enough it loses any generalizability or coherency. Saying, "We should all do this or that", referring to all people or all Americans, for example, is either so generically obvious it doesn't need to be stated such as in the statement, "We should strive to make the world a better place" or it becomes so vague as in the statement, "We, the people of the United States of America..." that it holds no specificity and therefore does not offer to reveal any real identity.
Another example is in the following sentence, "what we did in Vietnam," and we assume that what they mean is America if they are American, which is exceptionally vague because the "we" in this statement attempts to hold a large number of people responsible for something they had nothing to do with. Not that no one in America still living had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam. Even if the speaker is referring to the historical fact that America did something in Vietnam the meaning is still not clear as the definition relies on the ever-changing definition of the peoples of America, for the word "we", when spoken by a person, typically includes humans and certainly does in the above statement.
The definition of "America" in 1969 would not only include all the individuals that lived during that time but would also describe their actions. Obviously, this is an impossible thing to do accurately, hence the simplifying use of the word "we". The actions of the government would be the most representative of the US to anyone outside of the United States so one must include the actions of the government as well, which means that you have to separate out the individuals that made up the government and weigh their actions heavier than the civilian population. Then you might want to include the most financially affluent as they probably funded many of the politicians that ended up in the government and for their contribution to American culture. The words "America" and "Americans" only represent an abstract concept and it's actual definition evolves constantly.
Can a nation be considered a continuous entity? What is the statute of limitations of a nation's crimes?
Considering that I have asserted that a "nation" is nothing more than a concept referring to individual people, then holding a "nation" accountable could be dealt with in a similar fashion as holding individuals accountable. One can not sit a "nation" down and demand recompense, as the true definition of a "nation" should include the sum total of its inhabitants at a given time. That does not mean that one can't identify those that made decisions that directly lead to the guilty act. This is typically the responsibility of the governing body of the nation but might also include the wealthy and otherwise influential.
When you hold all the weapons you are only accountable to yourself.
If a speaker is using a form of "we" that is devoid of persons or includes non-humans then it should be clear within the context of the statement. Maybe in a world full of sentient aliens and humans, the use of the word "we" would grow to include non-humans as a norm. Also, if the word "we" refers to all biological entities then it refers to non-humans as well but when was the last time someone said the word "we" to refer to all biological forms?
I suppose that part of the reason that I have a problem with anyone using the word "we" in a way that ascribes responsibility is that groups of people don't do anything. Individuals do things and make decisions. When they work together it is easy to group them up and consider their efforts as a whole. It makes it easier to talk about what happened and what you think should have happened.
To be accurate one should name everyone involved but it is hard to say all the names of the people involved when groups become larger than a few people. When there are too many people to state their names one can take shortcuts. The problem with linguistic shortcuts is that when they are repeated without consideration their original meaning can get lost and one stops using our critical faculties. This is one of the reasons that abstract language leads to misunderstandings. Another abstract concept is represented by the word "group". This is another vague term that relies on context and shared knowledge. The word "group" is the more objective version of "we" just and the word "they" is an externalized version of "we".
The pyramids were not built by groups of people. One might say that it was built by Jews, a recognized group of people, but one should not say that it was built by "the Jews". Many Jews had nothing to do with it and considering that it was so long ago the accuracy of any statement about the history of the pyramids should be suspect. Even the word "Jew" as an identifier of individual characteristics is not well defined. In using the word "group" in this fashion one is forgoing every bit of information related to the actual physical reality and representing it in an alternative way. They are redefining the event and abstracting its contents. This is a necessary aspect of communication via language as efficiency is important. People do not have the time to name and address every human and activity related to an event. All of history is told using abstractions, metaphors, and vagueries.
The story of the pyramids is what lingers. Not of the actual entities that were involved.
The pyramids were built by lots and lots of individuals that used their bodies to accomplish work. While one can create endless categories in an effort to describe similarities or differences among individuals the fact still remains that it is individuals that act. They may use justifications that appeal to communal concepts but they still act of their own accord even if not totally of their own volition. They are responsible even if they are not completely in control. Environmental pressures and the drive for survival have a great influence on behavior but even in the face of death, some have had the will to fight their instincts and act of their own will.
So, then in what circumstances is one permitted to use the word "we", you might ask. I actually think it is perfectly fine for people to use the word "we" whenever they want but one should be aware that it may lead to miscommunication and misattribution. One should strive to be accurate in their speech and not succumb to the laziness of using vague words and idioms. If one is referring to all humans then they certainly can use the word "we" but in most other cases one should be careful and deliberate with their use of the word.
Maybe one of the reasons that the word "we" is used so wantonly is that it promotes communalism. By using the word "we" one can hold many people responsible for something without having to find and name all the individuals. Humans are a highly social species and do not thrive in isolation. In fact, I would venture to guess that group identities were formulated well before individual identities in humanity's linguistic past. The identification of outsiders was and is a survival instinct that has roots that go deeper than our Homosapien speciation. Therefore, the notion of a "We" is hardwired into we humans. A small person might be called a wee human.
One of the problems with using the word "we" in a lazy fashion is that one will likely end up holding someone responsible for something they had nothing to do with. This makes it easy to identify large groups of people, some of which might actually be immediately responsible, but some might have just been on the outskirts of the group and knew nothing of the occurrence. Groups are rarely in full unison and while many may act as if they always agree with their group's decisions in public many will debate its merits in private. Groups of humans are not mental monoliths or cyborg hiveminds.
The question might then arise, "are a state's citizens responsible for the actions made using their tax dollars but without their direct permission or involvement. Governments make many decisions that are never put in front of the citizenry so can a citizen be held morally responsible because they did not withdraw their financial support? Can a citizen be expected to risk their life and their family's life to disobey a government that acts against their value system?
While a citizen might not be expected to withdraw financial support to a corrupt government by not paying taxes, they can still use other means such as voting, petitioning, speaking out, or whatever else is not deemed illegal by the sitting government. What is important to understand here is that the government is another group that is incapable of taking action. It is simply a concept. A narrower but still vague "we" that is actually made up of individuals who make decisions and take action. Individuals are responsible for what the government does but it is easy to spread the responsibility thin in a culture the masks responsibility under the guise of communal togetherness.
On Consciousness and Free Will:
Maybe if the universe is deterministic then it doesn't matter if we hold the wrong person responsible for things. Maybe we are all on a rollercoaster that never ends and our momentum leads us down the only path available. Maybe that means that there is no "we" as there is no "you"? If the self is an illusion then so is the concept of we. What is a group of illusions called? Are we only an illusion to ourself or is it that our concept of ourselves is an illusion? Is the entirety of our internal conception of ourselves an illusion or are some aspects real? If the external world is real then are others not real? If others are real then I am real to others? If they are real to me but not to themselves then there is a contradiction.
Either, we are all real or we are all an illusion.
The definition of the self becomes important here. I would use the following to begin to define the self:
1. The self is a minimally reducible entity that still maintains the other attributes.
2. The self is composed of a person's physical body, regardless of deformity or loss of organic material.
3. The self is alive. (Unless one believes that the self is separate from the body or denies biology in general.)
Here is a short list of things I attribute to my personal concept of my self:
4. I am conscious.
5. My consciousness relies on my biology and is born of it.
6. I am responsible for my actions.
7. I am only partly in control of my actions.
8. I can discipline my will power and grow its effectiveness.
Free will is an acceptance of your participation in the actions of your body. Free will is taking responsibility because someone has to. Free will is holding people accountable for not trying. While free will is not always activated it is always available unless the person is broken somehow. That is why we do not imprison people we deem mentally incapable of exercising their will power.
Is it not just an expression of our total narcissism as a species that we might think that we are important or in charge of the world.
The whole concept that there is something bigger out there is based on the collective value system and the vastness of the external world and the hierarchy of the pack.
I think many times when people say "we" they mean "I" such as in the sentence, "How do we feel..." If the speaker had used the word "I" instead, it would have no inaccuracies and cause no confusion about who is being referred to. But when they use the word "we" they create a disconnect from the subject of the statement. They broaden their scope and add something when something more is not needed and may not exist. They are obscuring the meaning of the statement and creating an unnecessary abstraction.
If one draws a picture of people standing around then there are only individuals. If one then draws a circle around them and then calls the group "they" or "we" then one is still referring to individuals but pulling back on the detail which leaves room for entropy and a lack of clarification. One is sacrificing the truth for convenience and efficiency, which is not all bad, and utilizing an abstract concept that only exists within the brain as opposed to referring to actual physical bodies, ie: the individuals.
There are things that exist outside of the body and there are things that only exist within the neural network that exists in the body. Consciousness seems to be an emergent phenomenon that exists due to neural networks. Until recently the only notable network was within the human body but now there are networks outside the human that may contain the same emergent properties such as on the internet. Maybe this is not a meaningful distinction or category of existence.
On AI:
When Sam Harris or Elon Musk talks about the future of AI and say things like, "we" have to consider this or that or that "we" need to be careful, who the fuck are they talking about? Maybe they are just talking to those who are responsible for creating and developing AI and robotics or those that are funding research but because the word can apply to everyone in this context it is hard not to be confused about what they are asking of me. If the "we" here means every human then I am not sure what I can do to stop AI, especially considering it is already here and that I have no idea how it works.
Now, humans have created catastrophically bad technologies but again I ask, who is to blame? It seems like it would be the individuals that acted to create these terrible technologies or who chose to use them. The same human drive that created the atom bomb created the polio vaccine. It seems that with the explosion of creativity and scientific understanding we get a combination of both terrific and terrifying technologies. Thus the universe stays in balance. A balance between chaos and order. Entropy and cohesion. Humans are constantly encountering the sublime and the horrific.
Sometimes people speak too abstractly and lose something in the translation. Such as when a headline says, "Wrestling still isn't sure what to do with women..." What they really mean is that women do not occupy a major role in the wresting industry. "Wresting" isn't a thing that can do things to women. People personify concepts such as "wresting" and give it agency. This is partly in an attempt to understand it better and creates a subject in which to assign blame. You can't understand something better by defining it incorrectly and to blame a concept incapable of physical action is irrational.
Another example of this is when someone says "we" when referring to all people. Someone may say, "We are all just animals," or, "We all want happiness," or, "We are fundamentally good," what they are doing is abstracting their own concept of who they are and projecting it onto the world of people. In many cases it would be more accurate to say "I" in these circumstances. (One can make accurate generalizations about all humans but they have to be based on some evidence and not just an assertion about the nature of humanity.) Also, I used absolute examples here, which is another example of people not using precise language. Absolutes are rarely accurate.
When people use idioms and cliches too much they are also utilizing abstraction to a degree that can lead to a lack of precise thinking and communicating. Prescribed phrases such as, "Obviously" or, "Don't cry over spilt milk", allow people to blurt out what seems like the right thing to say but is really just an automatic response indicating a lack of contemplation and autonomy. (More examples of idioms: http://www.smart-words.org/quotes-sayings/idioms-meaning.html)
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
― George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
I try to listen for people blathering and I wonder whether they know just what they have said.
The art of bullshitting becomes a fast friend to those that find it difficult to admit that they don't know something. Abstraction makes this easier as well. Saying vague things like, "Boys will be boys," or, "it is was it is," one can hide in the abstract instead of the concrete and plain.
Try to use your own words and think about what it is you're actually trying to communicate. It isn't always necessary to create an elaborate metaphor or use a pithy phrase. Sometimes, "I'm hungry," or,"I'm sad" are more effective than, "I could eat a horse" or, "It is what it is."
Metaphors can be very powerful tools for communication so sometimes they are highly effective and aid the speaker in relating a concept to their audience and I have used plenty of pithy phrases but I think it is important to get out of the automatic response system and search for the right words to express myself as much as possible. It can be clunky at times and awkward pauses are bound to happen but I enjoy the rare occasions where I say exactly what I'm thinking.
