Wed 28 Dec, 2011 05:44 am
My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same. It's the same core archetypes again and again and again, meaning only intensity is truly worth living for, unless one carries enough baggage as to make oneself neurotic. Then the most honest activity is one that causes both psychological and physiological intensity. It's the only way of maximalizing liveliness. Here's a few examples of how the baggage shows it self.
“All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.” - George Orwell.
Wittgenstein said philosophy repels those who suspect it is a timewaste due to language confusion in it, thus reinforcing language confusion in it. Too many philosophers have been freaks, this makes it overly obvious how society's unminimalistic unnaturality has gotten to them SOMEHOW.
Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science, and yet those in it work long hours. The abstract parts of science as bloated (i.e. few jobs) also in the west and they too attract freaks. Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y. Every snowflake is unique but in the end its just variations of the same old archetype anyway. Nothing new under the sun. Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.
Idealism, morality. "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." yeah who cares? Life goes on whether some philosopher sits around in his house. To care about the things Kant and others do is just an arbitrary use of one's time. They must carry much subconscious baggage to have such great passion.
Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.
The concept of keeping a diary. Who really cares about the past? It ain't coming back anyway. Better to be living a story than sitting around thinking about one, unless one has something yet learned for preparation for life.
Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept.
Humans evolved to DO after all, not sitting around (sedentary). Slack activities induce no extremity or intensity. Everything else is just unnatural. Or pershaps something has passed me by, not illuminated by my limited psyche. Now, try to counter my points; prove that there's something more to it, ultimately!
What if there was one that was opposite of one, a no one, that which was and is active in the creation of the present reality that is what you view as the world and you. In sight of this possibility, can not all that you say be deductively within reason said to be a falsity of your very view, or just of that which is the world itself? If what you say is true or false, under the same reason, can what you ever think be more than what another thinks? This is no trick or play on word's, nor is this said to any gain to myself or projection of myself...But you should look from the view that everyone is wrong, even yourself, for then only under such reason should you see what is what it is, for it is only what you say it is, therefore you make it what it is. Create for yourself and speak not out loud, for such is only vanity, and how can a plea assist you, other than it be answered by me...