Adonis Diaries

Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

Avatar getting shielded by their Gods?

Puny avatar; why in the name of God?

 

Show me a single religion condemning

As blasphemy, the biggest sin of all,

Speaking in the name of its God.

 

Puny avatar;

Why in the name of God?

Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, Buddha

 

Show me a single religion

Not inaugurating a President

In the name of its God.

 

Not haranguing the troops

In the name of a God.

Not persecuting other religions

In the name of a God.

 

Puny avatar; why are you hiding your weaknesses

In the name of a God?

Are you scaring me with eternal fire?

Is a candle burn not bad enough?

 

Are you frightening me to obedience by eternal pain?

Millions are suffering constant pain in hospitals, tents, in open air;

Of curable diseases, famine, thirst,

 

No pain-killer powerful enough to let go in peace.

Isn’t a single case bad enough to you?

 

Are you enticing me for immortality?

Anything scarier than boring immortality?

 

Puny avatar; why are you heaping your ignorant arrogance on me

In the name of a God?

 

Is there a single religion with enough imagination?

A total silence preceding a major cataclysm as God.

A complete darkness, not a candle flickering.

 

A world devoid of the feeling of touch;

Not a single soft breeze, not a wet loving kiss.

A world odorless and tasteless as God

 

Any one of that kinds of Gods would scare the hell out of me

And you won’t have to preach in his Name.

 

Puny avatar; talk in the name of God

And stay a dwarf: petty, mean, and coward.

 

Mankind! Stand up.  Wake up.

Dare speak in the name of Man.

Take on your responsibilities in the name of mankind.

Embrace your countless limitations;

Develop your limitless potentials.

 

Pray your God in the solitude of your heart;

Give grace to your God in the many ways to enjoying life;

For the opportunity to working with passion and sweating labor.

 

Puny avatar you were and is

In the name of God.

Try speaking in the name of man

With respect and humility to your fellow co-survivors

 

Sharing the same boat, the toil, hardship, and labor.

Sharing the smiles, joy, laughter, and compassion

Sharing what earth has in reserve to us all.

 

Singing with birds, the breeze, the sea wind.

Avatar you are and will be

And puny no more.

 

What are your strongest Passions?

There are passions and passions: There are induced passions, cultured passions, strong individual passions…

There are the “power to be” kinds of strong passions, and there are abstract passions that ideologies, religions, and customs would like you to incarnate for a “homogeneous community stability“.

All those institutions want to select for you the kinds of passions that are appropriate to your well being and development.

Our individual strong passions might change with age, lack of opportunities, energy deficiencies, and unplanned decisions.

Our strong passions that are the trademark of our successes and passion for life might be buried under less powerful passions, to satisfy our need to fitting within a community.

Most probably, periods of depressions, feeling of failure, and a life wasted could be the consequences of unhealthy behaviors of supposedly tamed strong passions that we failed to take full advantage of their beneficial potency, or buried deep during childhood.

Individual strong passions  do not ask why they exist, you don’t need to answer why;.

Otherwise, it is not in the category of strong passions.

Passion asks how and what.

it is  NOT a general notion but a very specific want.  It is not “I want to make plenty of money” but how I want to generate plenty of money.

It is not “I want a villa” but what kind of a villa, the design of particular rooms, kitchen, or garden.

It is not “I want a car” but details of your dream car.

It is not “I want to buy things” but exactly the product that you dreamed to own.

A strong passion is feasible but hardly attainable:  there are particular details that always have to be taken care of, to be redesigned, to be changed.

It is not “I want to be an architect” but what I want that is different in this world, which is compatible with my outlook.

An individual strong passion is NOT an abstract concept of equality, freedom, or justice. It is my individual concept and detailed program to bring about those concepts.

It is not “I want to get married” but the special wedding dress I have in mind, the special ceremony I want to organize.

It is not “I want to have kids” but the special method for upbringing.

A strong passion is hard work that constantly re-designs the minute details that strongly fit my passion of the moment.

I believe that personal reflection is the best alternative for discovering a set of values (most compatible with our strongest passions) to guide our behavior.

However, there are many obstacles for any individual to access his own “ideology” of life.

First, the school system, family upbringing, community customs and traditions are as many diverse implicit ideologies that an individual has to comprehend and sort out.

Second, it presupposes that an individual has reached enough maturity to believe that his reflections can affect the course of events.

Third, it presupposes that the governing institutional systems care about individual opinions and demands, and are ready to examine them seriously.

Fourth, it presupposes that the individual has enough will, energy, education, and perseverance to discover his own set of values and ideological system.

In many moments in life we asked “what is the meaning and purpose in life?”

How about we start from the obvious?

We are a bunch of jumbled passions that drive our life and we ache to re-order our passions and discover the strongest passions that mean most to us.

We want to be discriminated as an individual, not on physical traits but as thinking reflecting persons that have distinct set of passions that we managed to prioritize.

We finally think that we know who we are and what drove our life. Just a wish belief, an illusion, but Not accurate

We want to be at peace with our soul and spirit.

It is no business of anyone if I believe in a God: I reserve mine. All for myself

Have your Gods. One and only or multiple. 

Let the people who need to re-read the Old Books for stories, which are actually happening everyday and everywhere, do what they please: I prefer to read fresh versions, rooted in the current realities.

Truth , or the illusion of it, is uncovered by getting engaged in the reality, with all its miseries, injustices, indignities…

Let people who feel this urge to continually re-interpret the outdated and obsolete notions in Old Books, abstract notions that you’ll never be able to experiment with and that you’ll never comprehend, do what they please: I have this one life to experiment with and a rich reality to investigate, at my reach everyday

The live-forces in society have challenges to tackle, and difficulties to prosecute, while still healthy and full of energy and curiosity…

Fictional abstract notions of the after-life are for the weak-minded and those witnessing serious degradation in their health and mind power…

The live-forces in society need to:

1. Confront injustices on all fronts: Elite rich classes of exploiters, dictators and oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, absolute monarchies…

2. Demand and capture their rights, civil, political, and human dignity…Free preventive health care, retirements, educations, opportunities to all…

3. Shoulder their responsibilities to the common good of communities…

4. Keep practicing their talents and skills that they invested countless time and energy to acquire and enjoy…

5. Keep acquiring comprehensive knowledge in order to make sense of books and be able to write interesting books…

6. Get engaged in social and political laws processes and ensuring transitions to government systems that guarantee free speech, free expression of opinions, free gathering…All the requirements of a Renaissance Age…

This is a one-life shot, and I want to live it. And I want to live what I desire in the living.

Complications, complications…a long string of imaginary complications.

Life is so simple though.

You are born by the fluke of an impossible series of events.

You get to survive to be 5 year-old, a miracle 7 decades ago even in developed nations.

Your mother survived your birth, a miracle 6 decades ago in developed States, after giving birth to half a dozen of “unlucky” babies who didn’t make it among the living…

A couple of suckers of parents think they ought to sacrifice their lives to take care of this “happy happening“, way until he reaches over 50 years, on account that a baby is a baby as long as he looks chubby, roundish, and healthy.

And the parents die.

And you wait the long life expectancy statistics to come true.

And other persons, not your parents, are changing your diapers and cursing: “What’s this piece of shit they threw my way to tend to?

They are exploiting my energy and hard work for naught: For negative results in performance, degeneration by the day…” (Fortunately, you are almost deaf, and if you did hear anything, you are in no position to confront the nurse “argument”)

The result of medications that extend life and destroy its quality

Not an elegant return of the cycle to childhood, by any long shot, with the permanent infirmity you are in…

And ultimately, fodder to worms. And “dust to dust…” and ultimately to boson, this utra tiny particle?

And you say: “How could you be engaged in the common good, if your outlook to life is so down right gloomy?”

And I reply: “A pragmatic demonstration for my respect of other people’s opinions, contrary to mine, in the notion and possibilities in the after life…”?

People forget very quickly what good you have done?

No, nobody can forget the good deeds

Or they wish it is Not brought out?

Kind most of us would like to give the illusion they were always self-sufficient and independent?

Even if you hear a bad story about me, understand, there was a time I was good to those people too, but they won’t tell you that part.
No one should justify their bad behavior because of the good moments.
It won’t ever overlap the reality of how everything came to be. This is in reference with deceit and bullying.
People make mistakes, sure. Though, good times can’t mask a bad person. Being taken for granted when all you did was “good” is a whole other story.
Just because one person doesn’t seem to care for you, doesn’t mean you should forget about everyone else who does.
(Actually, we prefer to forget that if we survived so far, it is because of the hundred of “strangers’ who had pity on us and extended a helping hand)
People are only bad about others to feel good about themselves. Insecurity on their behalf.
Keeping others down to keep me up?
Leave these folk to their own devices, let karma to sort this out? No need to be that stupid and learn to select people and judge their characters
(Mind you that many are professional actors and they are Not aware of spending their life acting up)
Judging and condemning others before you know them isn’t my idea of nice, but I’m afraid it happens. I hear it every day. But I say don’t be horrid until you know that person yourself.. judge for yourself.
No need to trust who cannot laugh on himself and his many foibles, errors and mistakes

What make you feel in prison?

Do walls build prisons? Do iron bars make a cage?

Richard Lovelace wrote this poem in 1642, in the Westminster Prison:

“Stone walls do not a prison make,

Nor iron bars a cage;

Minds innocent and quiet take

That for an hermitage;

 

If I have freedom in my love,

And in my soul am free,

Angels alone that soar above,

Enjoy such liberty.”

Note 1: Joelle Giappesi or Julie, is a Franco-Lebanese who was put in prison, condemned for 5 years firm, for repeated heroine addiction at the age of 43. “Walls do not make the prison” is not simply a fiction novel.

Note 2: When everything around you is bankrupt, State, Banks, Central Bank…

When colonial powers sanctioned your economy and finances

When colonial powers add barriers to trade and daily communication with neighboring countries

When You know with certainty that tomorrow is never going to be better, and Absolutely Not to your kids and new generations

When you know that famine and unemployment will spread like wildfire, and you have no defenses to prevent small robbers and violent acts habits…

Those barriers are Not walls or cages: They are the worst forms of mass ghetto encirclement and incarceration.

Are we seeing Reality as is? The trouble with false assumption

What survival evolution has to do with Reality?

Brains and neurons have no causal powers, such as causes and effects.

Note: Re-edit of “Are we able to see Reality as is?  July 8, 2015

I love a great mystery, and I’m fascinated by the greatest unsolved mystery in science, perhaps because it’s personal.

It’s about who we are, and I can’t help but be curious.

The mystery is this:

What is the relationship between your brain and your conscious experiences, such as your experience of the taste of chocolate or the feeling of velvet?

This mystery is not new.

In 1868, Thomas Huxley wrote,

“How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the genie when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.”

Huxley knew that brain activity and conscious experiences are correlated, but he didn’t know why.

To the science of his day, it was a mystery. In the years since Huxley, science has learned a lot about brain activity, but the relationship between brain activity and conscious experiences is still a mystery. Why?

Why have we made so little progress?

Some experts think that we can’t solve this problem because we lack the necessary concepts and intelligence.

We don’t expect monkeys to solve problems in quantum mechanics, and as it happens, we can’t expect our species to solve this problem either.

Well, I disagree. I’m more optimistic. I think we’ve simply made a false assumption.

Once we overcome this false assumption, we just might solve this problem. Today, I’d like to tell you what that assumption is, why it’s false, and how to fix it.

Let’s begin with a question: Do we see reality as it is?

I open my eyes and I have an experience that I describe as a red tomato a meter away. As a result, I come to believe that in reality, there’s a red tomato a meter away.

I then close my eyes, and my experience changes to a gray field, but is it still the case that in reality, there’s a red tomato a meter away? I think so, but could I be wrong? Could I be misinterpreting the nature of my perceptions?

We have misinterpreted our perceptions before.

We used to think the Earth is flat, because it looks that way. Pythagoras discovered that we were wrong.

Then we thought that the Earth is the unmoving center of the Universe, again because it looks that way. Copernicus and Galileo discovered, again, that we were wrong.

Galileo then wondered if we might be misinterpreting our experiences in other ways. He wrote: “I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on reside in consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be annihilated.”

That’s a stunning claim. Could Galileo be right? Could we really be misinterpreting our experiences that badly? What does modern science have to say about this?

Neuroscientists tell us that about a third of the brain’s cortex is engaged in vision. When you simply open your eyes and look about this room, billions of neurons and trillions of synapses are engaged.

This is a bit surprising, because to the extent that we think about vision at all, we think of it as like a camera.

It just takes a picture of objective reality as it is. There is a part of vision that’s like a camera: the eye has a lens that focuses an image on the back of the eye where there are 130 million photoreceptors, so the eye is like a 130-megapixel camera.

But that doesn’t explain the billions of neurons and trillions of synapses that are engaged in vision. What are these neurons up to?

Neuroscientists tell us that they are creating, in real time, all the shapes, objects, colors, and motions that we see.

It feels like we’re just taking a snapshot of this room the way it is, but in fact, we’re constructing everything that we see. We don’t construct the whole world at once. We construct what we need in the moment.

There are many demonstrations that are quite compelling that we construct what we see. I’ll just show you two.

In this example, you see some red discs with bits cut out of them, but if I just rotate the disks a little bit, suddenly, you see a 3D cube pop out of the screen. Now, the screen of course is flat, so the three-dimensional cube that you’re experiencing must be your construction.

In this next example, you see glowing blue bars with pretty sharp edges moving across a field of dots. In fact, no dots move. All I’m doing from frame to frame is changing the colors of dots from blue to black or black to blue. But when I do this quickly, your visual system creates the glowing blue bars with the sharp edges and the motion. There are many more examples, but these are just two that you construct what you see.

 But neuroscientists go further.

They say that we reconstruct reality. So, when I have an experience that I describe as a red tomato, that experience is actually an accurate reconstruction of the properties of a real red tomato that would exist even if I weren’t looking.

Why would neuroscientists say that we don’t just construct, we reconstruct?

The standard argument given is usually an evolutionary one.

Those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage compared to those who saw less accurately, and therefore they were more likely to pass on their genes.

We are the offspring of those who saw more accurately, and so we can be confident that, in the normal case, our perceptions are accurate.

You see this in the standard textbooks. One textbook says, for example, “Evolutionarily speaking, vision is useful precisely because it is so accurate.” So the idea is that accurate perceptions are fitter perceptions. They give you a survival advantage.

Is this correct? Is this the right interpretation of evolutionary theory? Well, let’s first look at a couple of examples in nature.

The Australian jewel beetle is dimpled, glossy and brown. The female is flightless. The male flies, looking for a hot female. When he finds one, he alights and mates.

There’s another species in the outback, Homo sapiens. The male of this species has a massive brain that he uses to hunt for cold beer. And when he finds one, he drains it, and sometimes throws the bottle into the outback.

Now, as it happens, these bottles are dimpled, glossy, and just the right shade of brown to tickle the fancy of these beetles. The males swarm all over the bottles trying to mate. They lose all interest in the real females.

Classic case of the male leaving the female for the bottle. (Laughter)  The species almost went extinct.

Australia had to change its bottles to save its beetles. (Laughter)

Now, the males had successfully found females for thousands, perhaps millions of years. It looked like they saw reality as it is, but apparently not. Evolution had given them a hack.

A female is anything dimpled, glossy and brown, the bigger the better. (Laughter) Even when crawling all over the bottle, the male couldn’t discover his mistake.

Now, you might say, beetles, sure, they’re very simple creatures, but surely not mammals. Mammals don’t rely on tricks. Well, I won’t dwell on this, but you get the idea. (Laughter)

So this raises an important technical question: Does natural selection really favor seeing reality as it is?

Fortunately, we don’t have to wave our hands and guess; evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems are more fit.

A key notion in those equations is fitness.

Consider this steak: What does this steak do for the fitness of an animal? Well, for a hungry lion looking to eat, it enhances fitness. For a well-fed lion looking to mate, it doesn’t enhance fitness.

And for a rabbit in any state, it doesn’t enhance fitness, so fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes, but also on the organism, its state and its action.

Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is. And it’s fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution.

10:20 So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds.

Some of the organisms see all of the reality, others see just part of the reality, and some see none of the reality, only fitness. Who wins?

I hate to break it to you, but perception of reality goes extinct.

In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality but are just tuned to fitness drive to extinction all the organisms that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor vertical, or accurate perceptions. Those perceptions of reality go extinct.

This is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?

That is a bit counterintuitive. But remember the jewel beetle. The jewel beetle survived for thousands, perhaps millions of years, using simple tricks and hacks.

What the equations of evolution are telling us is that all organisms, including us, are in the same boat as the jewel beetle. We do not see reality as it is. We’re shaped with tricks and hacks that keep us alive.

Still, we need some help with our intuitions.

How can not perceiving reality as it is be useful? Well, fortunately, we have a very helpful metaphor: the desktop interface on your computer.

Consider that blue icon for a TED Talk that you’re writing. Now, the icon is blue and rectangular and in the lower right corner of the desktop. Does that mean that the text file itself in the computer is blue, rectangular, and in the lower right-hand corner of the computer? Of course not.

Anyone who thought that misinterprets the purpose of the interface. It’s not there to show you the reality of the computer. In fact, it’s there to hide that reality.

You don’t want to know about the diodes and resistors and all the megabytes of software. If you had to deal with that, you could never write your text file or edit your photo.

So the idea is that evolution has given us an interface that hides reality and guides adaptive behavior. Space and time, as you perceive them right now, are your desktop. Physical objects are simply icons in that desktop.

There’s an obvious objection.

Hoffman, if you think that train coming down the track at 200 MPH is just an icon of your desktop, why don’t you step in front of it?

And after you’re gone, and your theory with you, we’ll know that there’s more to that train than just an icon.

Well, I wouldn’t step in front of that train for the same reason that I wouldn’t carelessly drag that icon to the trash can: not because I take the icon literally — the file is not literally blue or rectangular — but I do take it seriously.

I could lose weeks of work. Similarly, evolution has shaped us with perceptual symbols that are designed to keep us alive. We’d better take them seriously.

If you see a snake, don’t pick it up. If you see a cliff, don’t jump off. They’re designed to keep us safe, and we should take them seriously. That does not mean that we should take them literally. That’s a logical error.

Another objection: There’s nothing really new here. Physicists have told us for a long time that the metal of that train looks solid but really it’s mostly empty space with microscopic particles zipping around.

There’s nothing new here. Well, not exactly. It’s like saying, I know that that blue icon on the desktop is not the reality of the computer, but if I pull out my trusty magnifying glass and look really closely, I see little pixels, and that’s the reality of the computer. Well, not really — you’re still on the desktop, and that’s the point.

Those microscopic particles are still in space and time: they’re still in the user interface. So I’m saying something far more radical than those physicists.

Finally, you might object, look, we all see the train, therefore none of us constructs the train.

But remember this example. In this example, we all see a cube, but the screen is flat, so the cube that you see is the cube that you construct. We all see a cube because we all, each one of us, constructs the cube that we see.

The same is true of the train. We all see a train because we each see the train that we construct, and the same is true of all physical objects.

We’re inclined to think that perception is like a window on reality as it is. The theory of evolution is telling us that this is an incorrect interpretation of our perceptions.

Instead, reality is more like a 3D desktop that’s designed to hide the complexity of the real world and guide adaptive behavior. Space as you perceive it is your desktop. Physical objects are just the icons in that desktop.

We used to think that the Earth is flat because it looks that way. Then we thought that the Earth is the unmoving center of reality because it looks that way. We were wrong. We had misinterpreted our perceptions.

Now we believe that spacetime and objects are the nature of reality as it is. The theory of evolution is telling us that once again, we’re wrong.

We’re misinterpreting the content of our perceptual experiences. There’s something that exists when you don’t look, but it’s not spacetime and physical objects.

(Is that true to senses that don’t need to go through the filter of the brain processors, like smell and touch?)

It’s as hard for us to let go of spacetime and objects as it is for the jewel beetle to let go of its bottle. Why?

Because we’re blind to our own blindnesses.

But we have an advantage over the jewel beetle: our science and technology.

By peering through the lens of a telescope we discovered that the Earth is not the unmoving center of reality, and by peering through the lens of the theory of evolution we discovered that spacetime and objects are not the nature of reality.

When I have a perceptual experience that I describe as a red tomato, I am interacting with reality, but that reality is not a red tomato and is nothing like a red tomato.

Similarly, when I have an experience that I describe as a lion or a steak, I’m interacting with reality, but that reality is not a lion or a steak.

And here’s the kicker: When I have a perceptual experience that I describe as a brain, or neurons, I am interacting with reality, but that reality is not a brain or neurons and is nothing like a brain or neurons.

And that reality, whatever it is, is the real source of cause and effect in the worldnot brains, not neurons.

Brains and neurons have no causal powers. They cause none of our perceptual experiences, and none of our behavior.

Brains and neurons are a species-specific set of symbols, a hack.

What does this mean for the mystery of consciousness? Well, it opens up new possibilities.

For instance, perhaps reality is some vast machine that causes our conscious experiences. I doubt this, but it’s worth exploring.

Perhaps reality is some vast, interacting network of conscious agents, simple and complex, that cause each other’s conscious experiences. Actually, this isn’t as crazy an idea as it seems, and I’m currently exploring it.

But here’s the point: Once we let go of our massively intuitive but massively false assumption about the nature of reality, it opens up new ways to think about life’s greatest mystery.

I bet that reality will end up turning out to be more fascinating and unexpected than we’ve ever imagined.

The theory of evolution presents us with the ultimate dare: Dare to recognize that perception is not about seeing truth, it’s about having kids. And by the way, even this TED is just in your head.

Chris Anderson: First of all, some people may just be profoundly depressed at the thought that, if evolution does not favor reality, doesn’t that to some extent undermine all our endeavors here, all our ability to think that we can think the truth, possibly even including your own theory, if you go there?

Donald Hoffman: Well, this does not stop us from a successful science. What we have is one theory that turned out to be false, that perception is like reality and reality is like our perceptions. That theory turns out to be false.

Okay, throw that theory away. That doesn’t stop us from now postulating all sorts of other theories about the nature of reality, so it’s actually progress to recognize that one of our theories was false. So science continues as normal. There’s no problem here.

CA: This is cool, but what you’re saying I think is it’s possible that evolution can still get you to reason.

DH: Yes. Now that’s a very, very good point. The evolutionary game simulations that I showed were specifically about perception, and they do show that our perceptions have been shaped not to show us reality as it is, but that does not mean the same thing about our logic or mathematics.

We haven’t done these simulations, but my bet is that we’ll find that there are some selection pressures for our logic and our mathematics to be at least in the direction of truth. I mean, if you’re like me, math and logic is not easy.

We don’t get it all right, but at least the selection pressures are not uniformly away from true math and logic. So I think that we’ll find that we have to look at each cognitive faculty one at a time and see what evolution does to it.

What’s true about perception may not be true about math and logic. (Fact is, human use vision (perception) 80% of all our senses.)

CA: I mean, really what you’re proposing is a kind of modern-day Bishop Berkeley interpretation of the world: consciousness causes matter, not the other way around.

DH: Well, it’s slightly different than Berkeley. Berkeley thought that, he was a deist, and he thought that the ultimate nature of reality is God and so forth, and I don’t need to go where Berkeley’s going, so it’s quite a bit different from Berkeley. I call this conscious realism. It’s actually a very different approach.

Donald Hoffman on March 2015

Note 1: The way I comprehended this awesome speech is:

1. There are only 2 realities:  The survival process of the species and Death

2. If mankind tampers with the survival process we are doomed (as we already decimated countless other species)

3. We don’t love Death. We don’t love making babies: we just deal with this survival reality as best we can.

4. Love is not within the realm of making babies: we just fall in love.

5. Keep mathematics and logic out of the survival process and do not allow them to give us new ideas on that topic

Note 2: Human species survived for millions of years without knowing that earth is Not round or that it was turning around the sun. Now, our species want to colonize Mars. What for? If all these expenditure on discovering the galaxies and building nuclear missiles… were applied to preserving the climate change for our survival for a couple centuries more.

What Einstein equation has to do in a long life?

Of what a long life is constituted from?

I classified this article under “lucubrations” assuming that not many readers will select this category from among the other most interesting 45 categories in my blog.

In my daydream, I managed an association between Einstein equation for defining energy and my definition for life.

The details and clarifications of my equation were the products of my conscious state.

Einstein defined the energy of an object as the product of the “mass” of the object by the square of the speed of light C.

My definition of life is the simple sum of elementary tasks by the speed of light (No square involved).  Obviously, this equation needs plenty of clarifications.

First, the equation needs not be a product/multiplication or an integral function.. and we can consider many other relevant functions after the definition of a task is understood.

Let us consider that any simple activity is constituted of hundreds of infinitesimal tasks, carried successively or in parallel, in order for an activity to be accomplished.

For example, in line production, every activity is subdivided into smaller tasks with computed standard time to finish an activity.  The idea is to train workers to be skilled, within the standard time for each task, and even be paid accordingly to efficiency.

Mind you, acquiring skills and talent in any profession demands lots of repetition, investment of boring time and energy and plenty of musculoskeletal problems in the long run.

Well, every repetition of any task is counted in the equation. You can imagine how much life has been wasted just to be accredited as a professional or a skilled worker!

If our brain and limbs could master a skill by simply “getting it” from the first trial of exposure then, imagine how much life we would have saved for another interesting things.

We would feel that life is stretching so long that it seems ageless.

Repetition of a task include the thousands of times that we copy, paste, reclassify, review, re-dust off our productions and memories.

Can you imagine how much life has been wasted by going back to long past activities?

Night dreaming is an activity with thousands of takes to constitute a movie.

Even the recurring dreams, mostly the unwanted ones, are counted.

The second time we experience a “deja-vu” dream is Not as bad as the first projection: we tend to sit and watch as one of the audience, instead of being part of the movie.  We just wait for this bad film to finish since we feel helpless to stop it or even press “Pause”.

Listen, this is a long story and a long article and I will get to you later for further clarifications and details.

Okay, I am back and I revisited my formula and revised it drastically.

Evidently, very few tasks go as fast as light C.

For example, the movements and reactions of limbs are pretty slow compared to light.

Brain reactions are at best as fast as electrons or 20 thousands km per second.

One of the rare tasks is as fast as C such as in the case when someone says: “I fell in love from the first look.”  This performance has high value rating in life.

Since my math equation doesn’t factor in coefficient of quality or honesty, then there is no difference between “Falling in love from the first sight”, repeated a hundred times a day with same person; or with one hundred different women/person. The equation is neutral.

For example, if you are endowed with a vivid imagination and can recapitulate “the moment” in your mind ad infinitum, then you can summarize the best that life can offer and very efficiently.

My position is that it is the first occurrence counts the most, and recollecting this miraculous/happy “moment” over and over again beats all other kinds of tasks in whatever criteria system you adopt.

Life equation clearly shows that there are many sorts of activities that ruin quality of life.

What is your quality of life when you commute to work?  Repeating so-called automatic reactions in driving a car, a donkey, or a bike for hours a day… is definitely cases that worsen the impact and mock my formula.

For example, how often you regurgitate worries left over from yesterday when you commute?

How often you re-enact the clownish acting drama for the current day difficulties?

How often you ran a red light and ran over a lousy living person?  All these tasks count in the equation and should be eliminated the sooner the better.

Think of algebra and how to cancel out redundant variables so that your life equation looks much simpler and beautiful.

So, how did you decide to commute in order to “save time” in congested metropolis?

One small problem remains to be resolved before we set our mind to change our lifestyle to maximize the life equation and its many constraint equations:  How many tasks and activities can fill a lifetime without being repeated again? 

Are we indulging in repetitions simply because we lack the imagination to figure out plenty of activities?

Are traditions the main hurdle for our lack of imagination because it dangerously reduced licit or legitimate activities to be experienced?

How about getting on this wonderful job of revisiting taxonomies of tasks and activities that could excite you (or not) after retirement?

How about you fine tune the many tasks that constitute professional line fishing?

We dwell on routine tasks to lengthen our life span. The case of the Silent Majority.

We die early on under the enormous stress of inventing and creating new tasks, activities and excitement: feeling restless confronting all the indignities and inequities done to others.

Are you able and ready to care less about total work life?

Note: Re-edit of “Life of total work? How to care less about this trend?August 20, 2017

“If I’m not just a worker, then who am I?”

Who am I when leisure, festivity, and play come to resemble work?

When co-circular habits of work out implicitly tend for being fit for sustained working habit?

When our days off is used in terms of getting things done?

When obsessions with work renders us miserable? Obsession of “being useful” through work done

Olivia Goldhill, June 11, 2016

We live in an age of “total work.”

It’s a term coined by the German philosopher Josef Pieper just after World War II—describing the process by which human beings are transformed into workers, and the entirety of life is then transformed into work.

Work becomes total when all of human life is centered around it;.

When everything else is not just subordinate to, but in the service of work.

Leisure, festivity, and play come to resemble work—and then straight-up become it.

Even our co-circular habits play into total work.

People work out, rest and relax, eat well, and remain in good health for the sake of being more productive.

(In my case, just to stay healthy and have enough hope for a better tomorrow, or a better luck in life)

We believe in working on ourselves as well as on our relationships.

We think of our days off in terms of getting things done.

And we take a good day to be a day in which we were productive. (Does that include being passionate about a hobby?)

But caring as much as we do about work is causing us needless suffering.

In my role as a practical philosopher, I speak daily with individuals from Silicon Valley to Scandinavia about their obsessions with work—obsessions that, by their own accounts, are making them miserable.

(Many young people are losing their head hair from the stress of finishing a project on schedule)

Nevertheless, they assume that work is worth caring a lot about because of the fulfillments and rewards it supplies, so much so that it should be the center of life.

I think this is an unsound foundation to base our lives upon. The solution to our overworked state isn’t to do less work; it’s to care less about it.

There are many ways to train yourself to care less about work.

You could become completely indifferent to life and not care about anything, or develop a distaste for working that reveals itself in extreme procrastination.

However, both approaches leave us stuck in a cycle of aversion and feeling deep dissatisfaction.

The better option is to care less about work because we care more about other things.

(How to figure out caring about something else that is Not considered Work is the bottleneck in our life).

Most of us have had meaningful experiences—finding love unexpectedly, feeling awe when asked an intriguing question—that we quickly dismiss as being no more than passing moments, or which turn into nostalgic episodes to be recalled wistfully now and again.

But these experiences are clues that reveal a different lens through which we can see life: The more important things take us out of the endless pursuit of “being useful” while enabling us to lose ourselves in the flow of time.

By caring less about work, we open ourselves up to caring more about other dimensions to life—about what matters more.

But that’s easier said—or written on a to-do list—than done.

How to care less about work

To get started, we need to become less attached to our notions of work.

The Buddha helpfully suggests that there are “3 poisons” at the root of our attachments: attraction, aversion, and indifference.

In this case, to become less attracted to, and therefore less hung up on, notions of career success, you should pay close attention to how those occupying positions of power are often over-extended, run ragged by infinite demands and herculean ambitions.

They are rarely leading well-rounded or well-ordered lives.

The cost of their single-minded striving for success is unvoiced suffering, loneliness, and the loss of other things worth caring about. If career success too often brings misery, then should it be esteemed as highly as it usually is?

Once you’ve detached the notion of success from that of happiness, you need to work out how else to find that satisfaction—but without actually achieving anything.

This exercise opens us up to Oscar Wilde’s famous dictum, “All art is quite useless.

We can refute total work’s claim that only useful things are valuable by taking Wilde at his word, and considering how we can perform fascinating but totally useless artistic experiments in our own lives.

For example, we could partake in the “art of roaming” without an aim or plan. This is an idea advanced by French theorist Guy Debord, who proposed that we let ourselves “be drawn by the attractions of the terrain” and the encounters we discover.

Alternatively, we could write a haiku, walk through the woods in the spirit of “forest bathing” (shinrin-yoku), or lie perfectly still in a moving rowboat, as 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau reports having done in Reveries of the Solitary Walker.

We could take part with others in breaking out of an escape room, immerse ourselves in sensory deprivation tanks, or practice calligraphy, an art that master calligrapher Kazuaki Tanahashi calls “brush mind.

By these means, we can plunge into life, engaging our senses while suspending our buzzing, noisy workaday concerns.

Once we’ve gotten the knack for embracing the idea that certain things in life are wondrous because they’re not focused on getting through, onto, or ahead of something, we can turn our attention to ourselves, inquiring into our own lives.

Socrates’ great insight involved showing his conversation partners that they thought they knew themselves, but it turns out that they didn’t.

Following Socrates’ lead, we can ask ourselves, “If I’m not just a worker, then who am I?”

Let this question sit in the back of your mind for a few weeks before you try to answer it.

Who am I?” you might ask while getting bogged down at work.

“Who am I?” you might think while you notice your thoughts inclining once again toward completing tasks, planning, strategy setting, and making insurmountable to-do lists.

“Is this who I am? Is this all I am?”

This philosophical question, posed over and over again, is intended to arouse great doubt in you, inviting you to prod your deepest ambitions, why you’re here, and what it’s all about.

If your destiny is Not to be a total worker, then what could it be?

Exasperated, a character in Voltaire’s Candide says, “Let’s stop all this philosophizing and get down to work.” What a waste of time, he seems to be saying—and maybe you’re thinking the same thing.

We could, of course, follow his advice and just keep our heads down. Or we could insist upon working less without caring less about work.

Or we could try to find a time-management guru who would allow us to continue a regime of total work by playing time-saving techniques.

But aren’t these approaches just more of the same: total work in action?

If the solution to your anxiety is keeping your head down, easing up a bit, or working more efficiently, you’ll someday regret the awakened life that will have ultimately, tragically passed you by.

Exercises like these shepherd us beyond the world of total work, helping us to remember why we’re here. They allow us to shed our worries, anxieties, irritations, and busy-ness

By caring about work a little less, we can afford ourselves experiences of what is truly meaningful, and let us rest for a while in the unfolding present.

You can follow Andrew on Twitter. Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Note: How to behave once you retire?

If you couldn’t discover a hobby, I say: Être a la retraite veut dire: j’ ai le matin jusqu’à 1 pm pour méditer, lire et écrire, et toute la nuit pour tout autre chose. Sleep my fill and sleep when I feel like to or when just bored. C’ est comme ca qu’on change une vie de labeur pour survivre.

Why I like to reinvent the wheel?

Reinventing the Wheel (1998)

It does not matter what you believe in.

Constantly, reinvent the wheel in what matters to you.

 

Forget not: Your goal in life is to reinvent yourself.

Forget not,

You were born to feel

How to love your life,

Even for a moment.

 

Before your rotten carcass befriends

The worms and the cool dirt.

Is it a Modern idea? Happiness. A term spread around like cheese cake

Note: Re-edit of “Happiness is a modern idea? What the ancient philosophers were talking about…? Sept. 21, 2012”

In 1794, the young and radical French revolutionary Saint-Just proclaimed at the Convention: “Happiness is a new idea in Europe“.

Saint-Just was a learned man and must have read the documents and discussions of the leaders of the American Revolution and the concept that happiness is a natural right for every citizen. Was this idea of happiness similar to the one understood in Europe?

After the French Revolution, there were ideas thrown around that all citizens were entitled to eat properly, enjoy health, free time for leisure, appropriate retirement conditions…

What substituted for Happiness in Europe before the French Revolution?

Before the revolution, the little people were invisible and were of no concern to the nobility in these absolute monarchies, except when famine hits and the power feels the heat…

The ancient philosophers and the succeeding thinkers viewed happiness as “a way of living”, guided by virtue and reason, in relative indifference to material possession and worldly successes.

It was out of the question that idiots can be considered to be happy

It was not conceivable to claim happiness if you believed that it could have an end: Happiness was a concept directly linked to a faith in eternity and immortality.

Happiness was irreducibly an elitist acquisition, reserved for those who had the mental and material means to become wise and leisurely contemplate nature and the living people…

What could be the meaning and value of Happiness in modern time?

The “utilitarian” vision of happiness (Jeremy Bentham) proclaimed that happiness is in essence the absence of pains and aches, and the satisfaction of individual preferences can come in any order…The goal of the activities of individuals is the greater happiness possible within the greater number of mankind “the common good”.

This “democratization” of happiness, at the reach of the little people, was denuded of its sacred meanings, detached of its religious connotations, not opposite to ephemeral and artificial pleasures…

Like what kinds of modern pleasures?

Smoking marijuana, taking cocaine, morphine, hallucinogenic products, Prozac…watching action movies, scary movies, science fiction movies…all kinds of musics, concerts, all kinds of variety of food, visiting remote regions, seeing new cultures and civilization…wearing variety of clothes…engaging in a variety of physical activities and sports…

The German philosopher Kant tried to demonstrate that happiness bears No Moral meaning.

For example, there are so many objective desires that people aspire to, such as wealth, glory, power…Can we agree that these “values” are at best controversial and not evident to the little people? So many exploiters and tyrants have been swimming in happiness

How happiness was characterized before the French revolution?

1. Epicure (341-270 BC) taught in his Garden to oppose the rigor of stoicism, and to converge toward a moral of moderation “Let’s not jump into any kinds of pleasure…There is no agreeable living without a hefty dose of prudence, honesty and justice…”

2. Seneca (4 BC-65) The individual should be capable of combining reason and character in order to find pleasure from his physical faculties “I am after happiness of man and not of his stomach…”

3. Leibniz (1646-1716): “Evil exists. Considering Creation as a whole, God did his best…The grain suffer in the soil before bearing fruits…Our suffering lead the way to the good, to the greater perfection…”

4. Spinoza (1632-1677): “The essence of mankind is the desire to be happy, to live good, and to act good…The only access to happiness is to know what determine our passions in the natural order of the universe…”

And what are the visions of happiness after 1789?

5. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). All the pleasures are Not of equal values. It is better to be an unhappy Socrates rather than a happy imbecile. Individual happiness is not complete if the common good is forgotten and neglected…

6. Nietzsche (1844-1900): “Who cannot learn to take a break to forget the past, to enjoy the moment, will never appreciate happiness, and will never learn how render others happy…There is a level of insomnia, of rumination, and of historical meaning that ruin the living person and annihilate his happiness…”

7. Georges Bataille (1897-1962): “If happiness is a reaction to the call of desire, and if desire is a caprice incarnate…then happiness is the sole moral value…”

8. Michel Foucault (1926-1962): “Abstinence that leads to individual sovereignty is happiness without desire and without trouble…”

Many modern critiques and thinkers made it a business (publishing books of how to be happy…) to fall back into the archaic version of “learning to be happy…”

Kind of  “if we know how to enjoy life in the cheapest way possible…” happiness can be in the reach of everyone…(except those dying of famine and of common diseases…?)

All that talks of ancient and modern ideas of happiness have no sense if not described and explained within the proper context of the period and culture.

For example:

1. How an individual with a life expectancy of no more than 30 years can conceive of happiness?

2. How an individual living in the harshest conditions to survive may experience happiness?

3. How the European under absolute monarchies and with a life expectancy not surpassing 40 years could comprehend the idea of happiness?

4. How all those cow-boys of the Far West experienced the meaning of happiness?

5. Was happiness the same before, during and after the Chinese revolution?

6. Was happiness experienced in the same quality before, during and after the British dominion of India?

7. Has happiness the same meaning and value before and after the “Industrial Age“?

8. Has happiness the same meaning and value during this instant communication and traveling facilities?

9. Don’t you think as life expectancy reaches 80 years that happiness requires extensive planning and preparation as we hit retirement age?

What can you do with your life without talent after 60?

How can you be happy if your eyesight goes and your hearing capacity dwindle?

The next article intends to describe the feasibility of experiencing “happiness” within the proper context…

Note: Post inspired from a study by Ruwen Ogien in the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur #2490


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

September 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,418,646 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 770 other followers

%d bloggers like this: