Life in a nutshell

[thebadkitty]

I think that's when things would really get interesting.
Lewis Medlock: "Machines are gonna fail and the system's gonna fail...then, survival."

If the edifices of the West were to crumble, would that necessarily be a bad thing? For some yes, but for everyone?
When the person next to me exclaims "I can't leave the house without my smartphone!" I ask myself almost the same question, Perique.

 

[johnnyreb]

If you read anything written by the futurists about the coming Singularity than you know of the proposal that within a couple of decades, just 20 yrs it will be possible for all the information in our brains to be regularly backed up on a computer hard drive for safe keeping. Then should you suffer a stroke, a brain aneurism or some other brain injury and assuming medical science has kept up and can repair the injury, then all the rehab that would be required would be the reloading of the backup information into your brain again.
Of course it doesn't take much to extrapolate from there the possibility exists that we could all be Einsteins with the exact same intelligence & information in our brains; everyone could be programmed the same. Those warning labels for the stupid would no longer be required.
Where the problem comes is with increased longevity becoming common thru the Singularity what does that do to the world's population & how do we control it? And who pays for all this? It is believed by the futurists that much like stem cell treatment (remember all the hubris that caused before just disappearing?), such treatments will only be available to the wealthy elite, professional athletes & Hollywood actors, politicians & TPTB.

 

[pappymac]

If I wanted "life in a nutshell" I would have been born a nut.

Seriously, my advice to everyone is to buy and read "The TAO of Willie" by Willie Nelson.

 

[retrogasm]

That assumes that "wrong action" is easily defined. We live in a very fluid/liquid culture in which fixed notions of good and evil are constantly shifting and in my view shifting in relation to market values which is a disastrous, IMHO, in and of itself. I believe that our modern cultures has reached a level of hubris that it no longer values the evolutionary nature of the ethical domain of life (although we worship at the alter of evolutionary biology!).Human societies nowadays destroy long held structure for the sake of of an undefined "new" just for the fun of it ignoring ancestral accumulated wisdom under the false assumption that we are now different.
The human psyche does not seem to evolve as fast as technology and the challenges it begins forth yet we act as if it does.
A very good read about this topic is Zygmunt Bauman's Liquid Modernity.

That's the most uncomfortable I've ever been on a pipe forum. Perhaps you should elaborate on some of this, without the euphemisms?

 

[deathmetal]

What I mean to discuss here is India's Dream, older than Buddha and the Vedas--that anyone can achieve liberation from suffering, by renouncing the ego's claim to ultimacy, and by realizing deeply and with every breathe that separation is an illusion.

Interesting, but kind of goes against your thesis. Life is not what the mind makes of it, but what the mind realizes is there.

 

[Perique]

@aldecaker
Just to clarify: I'm a farmer, not a prepper. It's a serious philosophical question in that: is the philosopher a student of life, or merely of his life? How might those more esoteric ideas be radically adjusted if said philosopher had to feed himself, or otherwise provide for his own needs? And if the answer is, "radically", can philosophies based on the conveniences of the modern supply chain truly be universal? Or more precisely, of what value are they, really?

 

[atskywalker]

That's the most uncomfortable I've ever been on a pipe forum. Perhaps you should elaborate on some of this, without the euphemisms?

Sorry for making you uncomfortable. That was not the intent at all. Can you elaborate a little more on what made you uncomfortable?
I specifically pointed to Zygmunt Bauman because he dedicates the book to exploring the sociological ramification of how our modern culture is evolving, so it might be very difficult for me to distill his work here.
Just to be clear. I don't mind at all if you disagree with me in anything I say. In fact life would be very boring if people agreed with each other all the time. I may be completely wrong in my views but I shall never catch a glimpse of my folly unless there are those who would disagree with it ::

 

[atskywalker]

@johnnyreb. That sounds like Battle Star Galactica. In BSG it didn't end well at for us :lol:

 

[atskywalker]

What I mean to discuss here is India's Dream, older than Buddha and the Vedas--that anyone can achieve liberation from suffering, by renouncing the ego's claim to ultimacy, and by realizing deeply and with every breathe that separation is an illusion.

This is easier said than done and unfortunately when it comes to renouncing the ego's claims no one in the west seems to want to discuss the "How" beyond the "What". I'm not a Buddhist myself but I've had the good fortune of being exposed to Buddhist teachings extensively outside of western culture (specifically Burmese Theravada).
In my mind the reason we don't discuss this in the west is that the "how" undermines some of our basic and fundamental assumptions about a life well lived according to post modern capitalist ideals. The end result is that Buddhism in the west becomes a marketing campaign without substance and its fruits usually become a general resignation and renouncement from/of the political and social spheres of our lives. Slavoj Žižek rants about this a lot and although I don't particularly admire him I find his point of view on this subject worth contemplating.
I know this thread took a life of its own and veered a lot from its original focus and our common passion for Pipe Smoking so please don't hesitate to kill it if its breaking any rules.

 

[johnnyreb]

@johnnyreb. That sounds like Battle Star Galactica. In BSG it didn't end well at for us :lol:

I'm quite serious...it wasn't meant to be a joke. I'd delete if I could.

 

[atskywalker]

@johnnyreb why would you delete? I know you weren't joking. I just hope I'm not alive to see this happen if it ever did . The stuff about the singularity is fascinating. It sends shivers down my spin to contemplate what this could mean.
There's a British show called Dark Mirror (John Hamm). In Christmas 2014 they made a special called "White Christmas" that dabbles into this topic. It was chilling. If you can get your hands on it watch it. You won't regret it

 

[deathmetal]

Life philosophies cluster also:
(1) Dualists (waiting for a better world)

(2) Libertarians/Anarchists

(3) Self-sacrificing do-gooders (sometimes very sweet)

(4) Apathy as a defense mechanism

(5) Pragmatists

(6) Realists
Might have missed a few, but not many.

 

[shikano53]

Micah 6:8

 

[retrogasm]

Sorry for making you uncomfortable. That was not the intent at all. Can you elaborate a little more on what made you uncomfortable?
I specifically pointed to Zygmunt Bauman because he dedicates the book to exploring the sociological ramification of how our modern culture is evolving, so it might be very difficult for me to distill his work here.
Just to be clear. I don't mind at all if you disagree with me in anything I say. In fact life would be very boring if people agreed with each other all the time. I may be completely wrong in my views but I shall never catch a glimpse of my folly unless there are those who would disagree with it

That assumes that "wrong action" is easily defined. We live in a very fluid/liquid culture in which fixed notions of good and evil are constantly shifting and in my view shifting in relation to market values which is a disastrous, IMHO, in and of itself. I believe that our modern cultures has reached a level of hubris that it no longer values the evolutionary nature of the ethical domain of life (although we worship at the alter of evolutionary biology!).Human societies nowadays destroy long held structure for the sake of of an undefined "new" just for the fun of it ignoring ancestral accumulated wisdom under the false assumption that we are now different.
The human psyche does not seem to evolve as fast as technology and the challenges it begins forth yet we act as if it does.

My discomfort stems from what can be inferred from your statements above, and I have to infer since you don't define or give any examples of what you mean. At present it's a paragraph that almost means nothing, but with the potential to mean some things that could make a person...uncomfortable.
I don't see why I would have to buy a book to understand your post, let's first start with what your views actually are before we dig into the underlying theories that motivates them.
Modern culture's hubris is that it 'no longer values the evolutionary nature of the ethical domain of life'. What's the ethical domain of life?
Human society 'destroy long held structure'. What kind of structure?
We're also 'ignoring ancestral accumulated wisdom'. What's the ancestrally accumulated wisdom?

 

[seacaptain]

Life philosophies cluster also:
(1) Dualists (waiting for a better world)

(2) Libertarians/Anarchists

(3) Self-sacrificing do-gooders (sometimes very sweet)

(4) Apathy as a defense mechanism

(5) Pragmatists

(6) Realists
Might have missed a few, but not many.

You can back that up a step and get to the underpinning philosophy that drives the behaviors.
Pre-modern - Objective truth exists and it's revealed by God (whatever god you believe in). Prevalent view in every culture until the early 19th century.
Modern - Objective truth exists but it is derived by human reason and scientific discovery. This view gained prominence during the late 18th century enlightenment era and was the prevalent world view until the mid 20th century.
Post-modern - Objective truth does not exist. Each person can determine their own truth and no person's "truth" is any more correct than another person's "truth". This view gained prominence after WWII, especially in Western culture. By far the most common world view today. Just look at the replies to this thread.

 

[seacaptain]

The last line of the Wiccan Rede says it all for me.
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"

Identical to the Libertarian NAP. It falls apart in specific application though.

 

[atskywalker]

@retrogasm. Thats fair.
You certainly don't have to read a book to understand my post. A topic like that cannot be seriously handled in an online forum without having to point to external sources.
What I mean with "the ethical domain of life" is what most people would call "Values". My observation is that values have also evolved over thousands of years of human cohabitation in the framework of a society.
What I meant by "long held structures" is the accumulation of such values. I hesitate to bring out examples because I'm certain it will just add to the controversy without moving the topic any further.
What I mean by "ancestral wisdom" is what we call mythology and religion. I do believe that the widespread opinion in modern culture that religion is a bunch of fairy tales is gravely mistaken because it simply cannot see the forest for the trees. Issues of fundamentalism and literalism have obscured the true nature of these texts (be it Vedas, Bible, Quran, Upanishads, etc). To me, these books are the ethical/moral record of our evolution. Agreeing or disagreeing with them is not the point at all. The point is in understanding what they represent and how they attempt to achieve it.
Most people I have similar conversations with are on one of two sides regarding the evolution of such values. They either dismiss that evolution and its records (i.e. religion and mythology in general) as primitive and just a bunch of bull that we'd be much better off shedding/destroying, or they revere it to such extent that their domain of inquiry is limited to what they inherited from their parents solidifying it so much that the wisdom within becomes dogma. In both cases objective understanding/appreciation becomes very difficult if not impossible.

 

[atskywalker]

You can back that up a step and get to the underpinning philosophy that drives the behaviors.
Pre-modern - Objective truth exists and it's revealed by God (whatever god you believe in). Prevalent view in every culture until the early 19th century.
Modern - Objective truth exists but it is derived by human reason and scientific discovery. This view gained prominence during the late 18th century enlightenment era and was the prevalent world view until the mid 20th century.
Post-modern - Objective truth does not exist. Each person can determine their own truth and no person's "truth" is any more correct than another person's "truth". This view gained prominence after WWII, especially in Western culture. By far the most common world view today. Just look at the replies to this thread.

If there was a Like button I would've pressed it ::

 

[deathmetal]

Pre-modern - Objective truth exists and it's revealed by God (whatever god you believe in). Prevalent view in every culture until the early 19th century.
Modern - Objective truth exists but it is derived by human reason and scientific discovery. This view gained prominence during the late 18th century enlightenment era and was the prevalent world view until the mid 20th century.
Post-modern - Objective truth does not exist. Each person can determine their own truth and no person's "truth" is any more correct than another person's "truth". This view gained prominence after WWII, especially in Western culture. By far the most common world view today. Just look at the replies to this thread.

Very true. We are slowly drifting away from reality.

 

[aldecaker]

@Perique- Oh, I didn't figure you were a prepper. I was just keying in on the notion of, as you put it, "should the edifice of the modern West crumble". I was more tackling the practical end of it, not so much the philosophical end. As a farmer, you would probably have a much better chance than most of us, who have been cut off from knowledge of, let alone access to, the land that could sustain us (and have been for at least one or two generations). I was removed from a rural setting when I was a kid, and have been a townie ever since. In my opinion, us townies don't have much of a chance in the "crumbling" scenario, and I suspect it would be the type of ugliness I would want no part of. That's actually all I was saying.
As far as the philosophical end you mention, some philosophers may be students of life, but I suspect most are, in fact, students of their life.
***DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM POLITICAL!! THEY ARE IN REFERENCE TO AMERICANS IN GENERAL, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL BENT!!***
For a long time, I have thought that the biggest problem facing Americans is their general inability to view anything from anyone else's perspective, wether it be on the national or the world stage. An inability to see outside one's own perspective is incredibly dangerous, because it leads to the hubristic notion that one has no enemies. This basically invalidates any of the esoteric philosophical notions, because they are built on a foundation of complete falsehood. My short answer to your question is, When the shit hits the fan, it's all out the window.