Materialism, morality, and psychic efficiency

Post Reply New Topic

Before this post a quick public service announcement - tl:dr:idntk


Its been a while since I've started a thread on here. I know the last few were jokes as well, I'm getting to where I really don't even want to be remotely serious with things unless I've really got a thought that I find worth taking to the bank. This morning I was driving back from a weekend in Columbus and thought about a few things on my hour and a half of I-71.

The basis of what I'm linking together is the human life - ie. dealing with the subjective aspects of 'what is us' or 'what is the good life?'. I think I've reached a similar conclusion to most people here albeit I may phrase it a bit differently. Some would just say that what we experience as 'us' is nothing more than a computer program running on a biocomputer and that once the computer shuts down permanently the program doesn't exist. I might agree that there's a good possibility that consciousness doesn't exist after that but substantively I don't think this is fully accurate. Its not fully accurate in this sense - the program is really much more hardware driven and defined but more semantically it doesn't underscore that the pieces and parts that the system are made of, the fundamental building blocks, thermodynamics, motion, etc. are neither created nor destroyed. They come together for as long as a self-sustaining reaction has the right fuel or parts to keep going and when the time on that chemical reaction ends the components simply shatter. In a way we've either always existed and always will or never have existed and never will because you could look at us as our components or alternately, if you need to define 'self' as what's over and above the components, there never has been a self and isn't one now either aside from on that slightly higher level where motivation comes into play. Neither is fully correct nor incorrect.

When I talk about us being vectors I talk about several objects that comprise our conceptual core, things that drive our direction in life, make us make certain choices, where loads of motivation push us in certain directions and where a complete lack of motivation keeps us away from others. As we are on a full deterministic path (to the best that I can read of it) the very action of 'us' and our consciousness is like a running stream, its something following a set of laws and constantly working for lower and more practical energy states and, when built with enough complexity, you can build some pretty wild systems of that - the cell being, so far, the pinnacle of that sort of constant energy tradeoff.

So looking at the experience of 'us' being defined by motivations, motivation to succeed, motivation to eat, drink and have shelter, motivation to procreate, motivation to be an accountant rather than a salesman or a painter or musician rather than a doctor or lawyer, and as far as you want to break it down, we're comprised of - fundamentally, what appear to be some rather simple and early objects which sort of expand, interact with life, and then widen and fractilize into the dizzying array that is known as adult complexity. Its still the same fundamental building blocks though, some things get introduced but those primary 'things' are still the canvas the the picture is painted on.

Going back to this, we consider - consciously or subconsciously - what choice will I be happiest with? Where do we get the answer? some of that is what society will or won't do to us as a direct result of our choices but that's really 30 or 40% versus the 60 or 70% that's really internal to us and can even get closer to having 80/20 or 90/10 control depending on the person. Its those maybe four or five original wellsprings that took shape in our motivational core, the original thematic color pallet that you were given on the paint tray, which limited but also guided the painting that you ultimately ended up with.

Morality just comes as part of the process. What is morality? You have the givens - we live in a global group, we've worked to optimize our relationships with each other, and we've come up with codes of what's expedient to the health and productivity of those relationships. Additionally though, boiling that down more, you really come to understand - its efficiency. Error, sin, whatever you want to call it, there are efficient actions and then there are inefficient ones.

Now, the friend I was visiting this weekend is part of a campus Christian bible group. I had the chance to study with them again Friday or at least get in on the back half with them, help them move someone across the city and pack furniture, pray before and after. With the better portions of Christendom I've realized that, for those who are real with it, I like them a lot as people. It seems like they're after the same things I am and that quite often they're pursuit of those things - ie. a better life - is working better than it is for a lot of people who aren't particularly religious or spiritual. Being able to now really look at Christians in an outside way though I see with more clarity even, something I figured out when I was 20, maybe even earlier - that even if there is no God per say, if you take out the wacky stuff and pay attention to what most people want to focus on, its really a manual on social efficiency, best interpersonal practices, and it gets people even more excited by rallying them around what they've talked up into being an all-loving creator. When you do pray with them you feel that energy, you feel that enthusiasm, its very positive. Yes, they do struggle with odd issues regarding how to view certain issues of nature but, even there they typically do pretty well at putting it on a shelf and being pretty civil to most anyone.

I also had a book handed off to me by my mom recently - Rediscovering Catholicism. Its a book that supposedly brings lapsed Catholics right back to church. The author, Matthew Kelly, talks a lot about what a mistake Vatican II (making things easy rather than clear), he talks about what a horrible mistake it was for Catholics to put the saints up on a high shelf, idolize them, and say to themselves 'These people are truly exceptional - they aren't like us' (which - I completely agree on, its what people do when they want to keep their standards low and not be bothered, we do it on a secular basis as well with hero worship), but what he really tried to drum in was this - the authentic life. He kept talking about that over and over again, how it was an authentic life that brought people to Christ, by other people - lapsed Christians or nonbelievers seeing the grace that a believer has.

What is that grace though? What is that magic 'stuff' that they have? Its as plain as day - efficiency. Living the authentic life is really knowing and understanding your own personal vector, knowing how other people differ from you, when other people try to pressure you into doing something that doesn't work for you instead of just having a foreboding feeling about it you'll understand exactly why its not right for you. Its applied self-knowledge brought to the best optimization that a person can summon. Then again this is also why I really get pissed when, when you look at Judaism or Catholicism, that some modern anti-theists want to throw the baby, the bathwater, and the tub out from the belief that anything that so much as accidentally touched theism is corrupted beyond all hope. The baby in that bathwater happens to be a Newton or Einstein IMO. You have a lot of solutions on exactly how our society can go forward - in the best way possible - by abstracting/abjuring the actual substance from the bible.

Bringing yourself to live the best life possible for you means knowing who you are, knowing where you've tried to be someone you're not based on what people told you, and trimming away that fat, chiseling away at that marble surface to fully reveal the best of what's underneath it. Its like Michaelangelo's sculptures, he had many incompletes and when asked about them he said that a particular block of marble already has something in it, that if he had an incomplete it was because that's all that piece of marble had. Same with shaping and defining ourselves, one difference is that in gaining knowledge we do have plenty of additive process but at the same time, the most important part, is trimming away as much of the incorrect stuff as we can.

Anyway I hope that was a little clearer than a mud bath. I believe the underpinnings to be lock-solid although admittedly, as I do often without realizing it, I may have explained some things in ways that may be too esoteric to my own vision and may need more or perhaps different explanation. The general idea though - the good life and morality, the 'authentic life' stem from personal efficiency, and as a secular or atheist if you really wish to have something of a mission, something to share, or something to have people wondering "What does this person have that I don't? I want some of that" - efficiency, hanging as close as possible to one's own internal vector and deviating very little from that path, in extract I think that's it.

i do not claim to have read every word. If this is too off the wall, let me know.

Me, I have come a fair way from my First Grade memories. It does not matter if I actually do not exist or if I am nothing but a lump of slimy chemicals or if I am caught up in predestination or if I am an intelligent child of God with reason and volition. It feels like what it feels like, and we will find out what the reality is soon enough.

I went down some false trails - trying on society's values, or my family's values, or so and so's self help book. But in time I learned - If I do this, it hurts. If I do that, it feels good. If I do this, I can buy food and shelter. If I do that, I can't afford to patronize book stores. If I do this, people get mad at me. If I do that, people I care about are happy.

So - so far as in me lies, I maximize feelgood and minimize feelbad. That includes paying taxes, praying for Simone's family, reading Hornblower, staying away from mayonnaise, avoiding parties, not offending Herself, and telling raml and bitl what I think of them.

I can no other.

My only problem with hedonism in that capacity is that it isn't a practical map in the long run. People change, as do their priorities. With so much of what's really deemed pain or pleasure being internal and circumstantial it won't necessarily stay the same.

Which is why we have been given the conscience. Among the things that make me feel bad - and that I avoid as far as possible - is evildoing. Among the things that make me feel good is doing my duty - which I do so far as I can.

Consider the smoking of dried Nicotiana leaves. One is given to understand that the body's initial reaction is "Ugh - I don't like this." If one persists, the revulsion turns to addiction. In the same way, if one persists going doing that which is not right, the conscience's warnings can get overridden.

But I am not talking straight hedonism. Just enlightened self interest.

The real snares and traps are in the personal preference items which no one will give you an answer on. No one will teach you how to get that right either, its something one has to teach themselves. Everyone goes through that process with better or worse results based on how good the information was that they got and how good they were at sorting truth from fiction on the practical level.


Much like sober it can be gross but after a few scotch and sodas it can hit the spot. You'll also have people with all levels of physical fitness and even medical education who choose to either smoke or not smoke, obviously the consequences aren't subjective but the choice is, just like there are many reasons people smoke which are more binding than the nicotine (particularly for those who can go for months without cigarettes, go through half a pack at a club or party night, and go right back to not smoking for several more months - it could be the alcohol coupling, it could be the excuse to get some fresh air, socialize with attractive strangers, catch up socially with friends, etc.).

Another good example which avoids malignancy is if you hated sauerkraut or olives as a kid and as an adult you find yourself exposed to them in a new way where you find out that you like them. Likely nothing changed in your taste buds but rather in your concept of these two things. As well if you have two people taking an intermediate organic chemistry class - one has all their strengths and aptitudes in a row, knows what they want and they're going into biotech research, the other has all their strengths and aptitudes in a row but they're an art major who somehow got roped into this class and its not something they have any interest in pursuing - one could really get a lot out of the class and enjoy it, the other could be under considerable distress. Someone could find out that their art major was a terrible decision and that they're better suited for engineering medications for big pharma. An organic chemistry class during their artschool years and the same organic chemistry class after their decision to go for chemical engineering would likely as well hold considerably different levels of satisfaction (not as extreme as for someone who wasn't built for it but - while they might find it vaguely interesting but not really while being an art major, its essential as a chemical engineering major and being inherently good at it while having the interest would be a great assurance).

I am of the style that seriously dislikes the sensation of intoxication - I stop after one glass white wine. But in the day Wee Coryl enjoyed visiting a party and ingesting a rum and coke. She could get - in the vulgar speech - seriously sozzled, but mostly she nursed a single drink for the duration. She enjoyed being seen drinking because then she could say or do what she wanted in the assurance people would blame it on the drink and not on her.

There have been books and people that changed for me from puzzling junk to treasures and friends. Less in the food line - though that has happened to.

What is wrong with pursuing the pleasure de jour?

ruveyn

I don't think what Philologos described qualifies as "hedonism".
A cousin, perhaps.

Purely weighing it against one's self there's nothing wrong with anything if you're okay with the consequences. If one really wants to blow that all away its also okay to make those choices and be shocked all the time, and if one lashes out at people for consequences that they get dealt with by those other people. If they sincerely don't like it though or get sick of blaming everyone in the world but them in that case - this issue would be a great place for them to start the cleanup efforts.

What I was getting at in my reply earlier is that feel good feel bad change too much, are too shifty IMO to be the end-all of self examination. Its not to say that someone else can't choose that, I just believe that there are more efficient and accurate ways.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 11 Jul 2011, 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Frankly, feeling good often goes totally against what the body wants. The conscience is a hard taskmaster.

Conscience is what weighs the big picture and reacts to the bigger picture issues on an emotional/gut level. Its yet another piece of our wiring that guides you toward what your motivational core ultimately wants or, at a minimum, the best outcome available.

I can't pretend to have grasped the entirety of your post [I speak a simpler dialect] and from the end of the stick I do have a grasp on I can't pretend to offer any answers however some thoughts...

In the northern parts of the Indian sub continent they sometimes refer to this experience we call life as 'the dance of the hungry ghosts', we are for whatever reason experiencing this life in the vessel of meat we call our bodies and whether our ego is an accident of biological complexity or the manifestation of a 'soul force' or piece of the 'creative force' or 'whatever' actually does not matter too much as regardless of language the experience is the same - a world of sensory experience, some pleasurable, some not.

The body makes basic demands, we have come to experience satisfying these demands as pleasure and herein lies the lure of hedonism or the pursuit of satisfaction for it's own sake - the dance of the hungry ghost.

I have walked the path of excess, in fact at times I have hurled myself as fast as my feet could carry me down that route, I have never actually been more satisfied for all the effort as it is all relative! I have however had to wrestle with my soul while staring at the walls as to the costs paid by myself, or others, or my environment in this pursuit. This has led to confusion, guilt, self loathing, excuse making, blame placing... etc...

I now moderate myself, I have studied and reasoned for over 20 years the thinking of the Taoist sage Lao Tsu, the early zen buddhists, the sufi teachings and the thoughts of my esteemable brethren who submit to the most high force - creation [life, god, earth mother sky father, family of man... - whatever you choose to call it]. Through this I have become a little wiser, calmer and somehow have more moments of real deeply satisfying pleasure more often without doing anything except taking a walk, watching the sky, sea, trees [or whatever].

I choose for all my spiritual failings to peer beyond the veils of maya and keep focused on the pursuit of higher comprehension and expanding my limited gnosis, by being as humble as I can be in my ambitions and by being as simple as I can be in mode [the path of ascetism] I find this easier as the meat does not distract me - I am not a thing of flesh enslaved by an overly hungry spirit [a hungry ghost], I have developed my thinking to the extent that I no longer experience this as 'self denial' or 'austerity' though I do still live in an overly seductive world of material distraction and at time submit to it's lure I do so in a measured way and take full responsibility for the outcomes.

Everyone has to walk the journey that is their life for themselves, you can only work with what you know, and it is all easier if you maintain an enquiring mind, good luck bro'

peace j

What you are labelling conscience clearly is not what lives in me.

On the one hand, yes, I could say my motivational core wants to reach God. But you sound - I hope I do not miscomprehend - to be talking on a protoplasm is what there is basis. Like ruveyn with his "no mind" belief system.

My geometry does not stop with Euclid.

Its probably more of an issue with the limitation of words. I should perhaps say it pulls at and appeals to us often at an emotional level but its the broader society construct, the one that tells us whether our choices are destructive to others or not.

I'm exploring 'this' in more of a material-based sense, ie. if there's no soul, no self, no free will, no God, we still have these urges in us that propel us forward or should I say more likely push us from behind. We'd all agree that its part and parcel with the needs of millions of microorganisms living in a colony which need to be fed but, when we examine consciousness and its need to find peace with the universe as it exists, my OP is pretty much what I come up with. That we're complex vectors, the core of human psychology and what leads us to happiness has a lot to do with how close we stay to our source drive and how true we are to our most primary needs, gifts, propulsions, etc. I think of these as the wellsprings of motivation. That kind of self-actualization is maximal to efficiency.

If you are insisting on a biological material phenomenon [and no we would not "all agree"], I am holding out a bipartite structure.

At cross purposes. I must not have seen that part of your initrial post.