glen: " ... it's fundamental to biology for organisms to seek ecstatic states 
... the oneness of the universe, the dissolution of the self, etc."

There is a lot of evidence that this is true, and perhaps it is a behavior that 
could contribute to the, apparently, abandoned discussion of consciousness.

It a creature actively seeks to get high, it is conscious. 

elephants do it, birds do it, I do it, you?

davew


On Tue, Aug 13, 2024, at 12:07 PM, glen wrote:
> Dude. OK. The Angels becoming Demons isn't a duality, at least in my 
> intent raising it, here. Our want to, desire for, *fascination* is both 
> good and bad and good and bad aren't duals. Regarless, even if you want 
> them to be duals, that's fine. The point I'm making is that this trait 
> of ours, the desire to be fascinated/ecstatic is hallmark/canonical. 
> Only those of us hopped up on mediTation or drugs that blunt emotions 
> exhibit a reduced desire for things like profundity, awe, ecstasy, etc. 
> It reminds me of the book "To Engineer is Human" ... but I'd generalize 
> and say that it's fundamental to biology for organisms to seek ecstatic 
> states ... the oneness of the universe, the dissolution of the self, 
> etc.
>
> But this desire for beauty, to escape our selves, IS the problem as 
> much as it is the solution. That's what I mean by Angels and Demons. 
> Also "bullshit" is fairly well defined. It's an artificial/false 
> construct constructed without regard to the Truth (where "Truth" might 
> mean any number of shared values, accuracy, usefulness, etc.). This 
> means that bullshit can accidentally be true, but never True.
>
> I don't know how much time y'all spend talking to, say, QAnon believers 
> ... or back in the day those who yapped about Bilderberg, the 
> Illuminati, speaking in tongues, or whatever. But, for me, the 
> enthusiasm and ecstasy they exuded was infectious. Even as several of 
> my homunculi knew it was bullshit-begetting, it was downright fun; not 
> so harmless as the mob behavior of a rave, but still fun. I sought 
> (still do to some extent) it relentlessly. It's a miracle of 
> happenstance (or genetics?) I was never engulfed by it. I still do, at 
> least when it's not merely lazy. In order for me to feel it, there has 
> to be some *deep* bullshit ... you have to be able to get lost in the 
> bullshit. If you hit clay or sand in the first hour or so, then it's 
> just not that beautiful ... It has to be like String Theory deep. Now 
> that's far out, man.
>
>
> On 8/13/24 09:19, steve smith wrote:
>> Ideaphoria as part of an annealing schedule perhaps?
>> 
>> 
>> A possibly self-referential example of what we are speaking of follows, as 
>> triggered by the topic and substance itself:
>> 
>> On he angel-demon duality...
>> 
>> Escher's famous hyperbolic tesselation on the same subject reminds me a bit 
>> of rayleigh-bernard convection cells?  I haven't seen (but may have 
>> imagined?) the kind of convection/involution patterns we see in the classic 
>> demonstrations in the context of the churn of good vs evil, and the the 
>> foreground/background exchange?
>> 
>> As Dennis Miller used to smirk at the beginning of his "don't let me get off 
>> on a rant here"...
>> 
>> I'm honestly trying to explore this "riff" as an example of what I think you 
>> are speaking of?   We were talking about the generality of "profundity as a 
>> breeding ground/enabler/masker" for "bullshit" (not precisely defined, but 
>> we probably all share an intuition of the 'know it when i see it' style?).
>> 
>> Your mentioning of the Angel-Demon duality triggered in my (too near the 
>> edge of chaos?) fecund (fertile/feral?) mind and Escher's image overlayed 
>> with R-B convection cells roiling (my first experience was in metallic model 
>> airplane paints when disturbed and left open to evaporate? would roil until 
>> the metal particles settled to the bottom?).   Without trying (but perhaps 
>> being compelled by an inner nature or drive, possibly what you refer to as 
>> the "orgasmic feeling" of "paradox or sophism") I found myself tangenting 
>> (as explored above) on the Angel-Demon implications of good/evil and the way 
>> one might be the fuel for the other and vice-versa.
>> 
>> Having veered from the original question of Telic and perhaps Teleonomic 
>> (applied recursively to the RB-convection phenomenon) I would sit and stare 
>> (inadvertantly huffing the volatiles?) at the roiling cells in the 
>> model-airplane paint with a fascination as to whether there was intention or 
>> goal or purpose in that activity? I did not know much of any of the 
>> technical details of these things and while I had been instructed by elders 
>> in no uncertain terms not to impute either perpetual motion nor animism into 
>> such things,  it was hard not to be deeply fascinated by said roiling.   I 
>> don't know that I as the R-B cells in Escher's image the first time I saw 
>> it, but probably not long afterwards.
>> 
>> This is the type of tangent I often delete, understanding it might well be 
>> taken to be deliberate bullshit generation (disguised as profundity)?   My 
>> threshold for <delete before sending> varies.   I haven't been on any pain 
>> meds beyond acetominophen since my (first) hip replacement a week ago, but 
>> the strange euphoria residue from the dissociative sedative (ketamine?) used 
>> during the extremely precise/surgical yet nevertheless invasive surgery, and 
>> the whole new suite of pains emanating from the hips and the introspective 
>> consequences are quite mind-bending.  As we know, I don't need this kind of 
>> (mild?) altered state to wax "profound", but it does change it qualitatively 
>> (from the inside)  a bit...
>> 
>> On 8/13/24 9:05 AM, glen wrote:
>>> It's reasonable to ask what proportion of profundity is a cover for 
>>> something versus a marker for something. I still tend to give people the 
>>> benefit of the doubt. So when I see either something that seems profound 
>>> (to me) or others saying or acting as if something's profound, it's a 
>>> marker for my or their confusion, respectively. While it may be true that 
>>> there are grifters out there who sow profundity, purposefully, in order to 
>>> mask their rational plans, that sounds conspiritorial to me. A good edge 
>>> case might be Elizabeth Holmes. To what extent did she know her claims were 
>>> bullshit? Or to what extent did she convince herself that her bullshit was 
>>> true/useful?
>>>
>>> Regardless of the proportions, the grifters don't breed bullshit so much. 
>>> They prop it up artificially. Bullshit begetting more bullshit (i.e. 
>>> breeding) has another home. I grant that it may not be profundity, 
>>> directly. Maybe it's the confusion underlying the profundity. But the 
>>> reason I think it's more the profundity is because the people I see who are 
>>> most guilty of it are attracted by the "awe" or the "beauty" of some thing. 
>>> They *want* to get stoned on some aesthetic, whatever it is ... carried 
>>> away, ecstatic, blissful, etc. Like a paradox or sophism, there's a kind of 
>>> orgasmic feeling to profound things ... "like. whoa, man."
>>>
>>> And *that's* the breeding ground, where Angels become Demons.
>>>
>>> On 8/8/24 11:03, steve smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe. I'm not convinced. Profundity is THE breeding ground for bullshit. 
>>>> I'm more inclined (in the context of my own profundity or perhaps more 
>>>> aptly prolificness or prolixity) to suggest that it is more of a mask (and 
>>>> therefore enabler?) of bullshit than a breeding ground. Could be a fine 
>>>> hair I suppose.
>>>
>
>
> -- 
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Reply via email to