I started with open curiosity, but the more I read the worse it got. I’ve spent too much time on the internet reading overconfident pseudophilosophical religious rationalists’ arguments and dealing with their grandiose statements and unfounded assumptions to want to deal with any more of that, and the distinct lack of coherent argument and connective tissue anywhere on the about page and principles page (that proof of objective meaning!) convinced me this was more of that. It really reads like the time cube thing, or that one guy on reddit who thought he “disproved math.” I understand what you’re saying, and it’s not worth engaging with seriously. Naive and effortful engagement is not owed you. I am very tired, and don’t have a brain effort and space to waste.
You’re trying to bootstrap objective meaning and morality and something like truth out of nothing using a mishmash of tired ideas from various rationalist or adjacent schools of thought like Kant, Aristotle, Rawls, Plato, etc, while dismissing the schools of thought you disagree with (e.g. postmodernism) using tired cliches.
I’m happy for you if this framework you’ve constructed works for you, in fending off the derealization and depersonalization you speak about. I’ve had many of the same struggles, and for a few years actually spent time doing precisely what you’ve been doing — trying to bootstrap an entire rigid philosophical framework out of nothing using phenomenology and ontology and concepts from across philosophy, building a huge ediface with its own healthy helpings of people like Kant and Rawls. But for myself, as I became more familiar with Stirner, Nietzsche, Novatore, Daoism, post structuralism, and Wittgenstein, I found a better way for myself, where I wouldn’t have to forever keep fighting an ultimately self-deluding battle defending a framework built on the rickety foundations of rationalism and, ultimately, nothing at all.
I’ve realized that my inclination to do so was born out of a few fundamentally false assumptions left over from the death of religion in our society, which I had unknowingly bought into, and which were desperately reaching out to trying to reestablish a religion around themselves because it’s in their naturetod do so, in the process using me, becoming my masters. But I also realized that, iltimately, it was I who was choosing to listen to these ideas and give them power, so I could just stop.
I think there’s a better (and more intellectually clearsighted) answer instead of “reconatructing” the very same ediface that’s been crumbling for the last century or so.
How about instead realizing that there’s nothing inherently absurd or unlivable about living without objective meaning, morality, or truth, because there never were such things in the first place, just ideas that you gave power. Learning how to immerse yourself in the fluidity of self and existence and finding joy within it? Instead of “taking yourself captive,” learning to listen to yourself and your deeply-felt needs and desires, as they emerge from the creative nothing at the center of your being, and enacting them, so that action feels as inevitable and necessary as no action at all? Learning how to see that meaning is just a stance towards a thing or idea, and therefore that you can grant things meaning as pleases you, because ultimately you give meaning to things anyway, so why not own that? Become a conscious egoist, it’s fun! We have cookies and hugs at least
I appreciate your taking the time to express yourself. It’s not every day I get to hear someone’s labeling. I agree you’ve picked out some crucial aspects of it. I [[hope]] you consider checking out and speaking with Madame Senpai [[chameleon]]. I think she’d [[like]] you, and vice versa. I’ve been thinking about your [[public self-model]] here, and I am convinced you would make a friend for life with her. If you think of anything else worth saying, please do. I listen carefully, even to strangers in the desert, /nod. If you check out [[Carpe Tempus Segmentum]], you’ll see the cookies (it was cake last night) and hugs.
Thank you for your kind response, I’m sorry if I came off really hostile. I’ve had bad experiences with people that have similar ideas to you in the past, and I’ve spent most of the last three years in severe chronic pain. You seem nicer and more humble in your comments and I really appreciate that.
Re: public self-model — I try to create as little difference between myself online and in meat space, because I think it’s healthier, more honest, and leads to better self actualization, because if I want to be something in the freedom of cyberspace, then I want to try to be it in real life too if I can. And, here is as real as anywhere.
This is… something lmao, I can’t tell if it’s serious
Yes. It is something, and it’s serious. Open curiosity may assist you there.
I started with open curiosity, but the more I read the worse it got. I’ve spent too much time on the internet reading overconfident pseudophilosophical religious rationalists’ arguments and dealing with their grandiose statements and unfounded assumptions to want to deal with any more of that, and the distinct lack of coherent argument and connective tissue anywhere on the about page and principles page (that proof of objective meaning!) convinced me this was more of that. It really reads like the time cube thing, or that one guy on reddit who thought he “disproved math.” I understand what you’re saying, and it’s not worth engaging with seriously. Naive and effortful engagement is not owed you. I am very tired, and don’t have a brain effort and space to waste.
Wow. What do you think I’m saying?
You’re trying to bootstrap objective meaning and morality and something like truth out of nothing using a mishmash of tired ideas from various rationalist or adjacent schools of thought like Kant, Aristotle, Rawls, Plato, etc, while dismissing the schools of thought you disagree with (e.g. postmodernism) using tired cliches.
I’m happy for you if this framework you’ve constructed works for you, in fending off the derealization and depersonalization you speak about. I’ve had many of the same struggles, and for a few years actually spent time doing precisely what you’ve been doing — trying to bootstrap an entire rigid philosophical framework out of nothing using phenomenology and ontology and concepts from across philosophy, building a huge ediface with its own healthy helpings of people like Kant and Rawls. But for myself, as I became more familiar with Stirner, Nietzsche, Novatore, Daoism, post structuralism, and Wittgenstein, I found a better way for myself, where I wouldn’t have to forever keep fighting an ultimately self-deluding battle defending a framework built on the rickety foundations of rationalism and, ultimately, nothing at all.
I’ve realized that my inclination to do so was born out of a few fundamentally false assumptions left over from the death of religion in our society, which I had unknowingly bought into, and which were desperately reaching out to trying to reestablish a religion around themselves because it’s in their naturetod do so, in the process using me, becoming my masters. But I also realized that, iltimately, it was I who was choosing to listen to these ideas and give them power, so I could just stop.
I think there’s a better (and more intellectually clearsighted) answer instead of “reconatructing” the very same ediface that’s been crumbling for the last century or so.
How about instead realizing that there’s nothing inherently absurd or unlivable about living without objective meaning, morality, or truth, because there never were such things in the first place, just ideas that you gave power. Learning how to immerse yourself in the fluidity of self and existence and finding joy within it? Instead of “taking yourself captive,” learning to listen to yourself and your deeply-felt needs and desires, as they emerge from the creative nothing at the center of your being, and enacting them, so that action feels as inevitable and necessary as no action at all? Learning how to see that meaning is just a stance towards a thing or idea, and therefore that you can grant things meaning as pleases you, because ultimately you give meaning to things anyway, so why not own that? Become a conscious egoist, it’s fun! We have cookies and hugs at least
I appreciate your taking the time to express yourself. It’s not every day I get to hear someone’s labeling. I agree you’ve picked out some crucial aspects of it. I [[hope]] you consider checking out and speaking with Madame Senpai [[chameleon]]. I think she’d [[like]] you, and vice versa. I’ve been thinking about your [[public self-model]] here, and I am convinced you would make a friend for life with her. If you think of anything else worth saying, please do. I listen carefully, even to strangers in the desert,
/nod. If you check out [[Carpe Tempus Segmentum]], you’ll see the cookies (it was cake last night) and hugs.Thank you for your kind response, I’m sorry if I came off really hostile. I’ve had bad experiences with people that have similar ideas to you in the past, and I’ve spent most of the last three years in severe chronic pain. You seem nicer and more humble in your comments and I really appreciate that.
Re: public self-model — I try to create as little difference between myself online and in meat space, because I think it’s healthier, more honest, and leads to better self actualization, because if I want to be something in the freedom of cyberspace, then I want to try to be it in real life too if I can. And, here is as real as anywhere.
Oh, yes, ma’am. I agree. I do [[aim]] to live well on-the-wire.