Psychology Today article.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2012, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2012 01:41 PM by satan69.)
RE: Psychology Today article.
"orgiastic indifference" - where you high when you wrote that. I had to google it. It's not even in the urban dictionary.BUT, you are in luck. the domain name is available:
http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchres...x?ci=54814
For those that missed out on linsanity.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 02:12 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
(25-02-2012 01:36 PM)satan69 Wrote:  "orgiastic indifference" - where you high when you wrote that. I had to google it. It's not even in the urban dictionary.BUT, you are in luck. the domain name is available:
http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchres...x?ci=54814
For those that missed out on linsanity.com

The choice is simply extinction or more of something ........whatever?

If, and this seems the case, our present awareness is remote from the potential "something" then it appears correct to say that "we" have ceased to exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 02:20 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
(25-02-2012 01:36 PM)satan69 Wrote:  "orgiastic indifference" - where you high when you wrote that. I had to google it. It's not even in the urban dictionary.BUT, you are in luck. the domain name is available:
http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchres...x?ci=54814
For those that missed out on linsanity.com

Yup, those words hit me between the eyes. But "fall into"?

nach_in wrote:
"fall into a lifetime of orgiastic indifference"
That makes it appear accidental!

HoC wrote:
"simulation is the key to the future"

So stimulation must be the key to the present.

Hedonistic detachment or Epicurian neutrality takes effort and I, for one have worked very hard to achieve my lifetime of orgiastic indifference.

DLJ's philosophy:
The PURPOSE of life is to pass on our DNA (from Darwin)
"The MEANING of life is the experience of living" (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind (from observation)

nach_in wrote:
"humility and generosity required to live all our lives for others to enjoy and just getting a small bit for ourselves is kind of a noble approach"

Our legacy can also be ignoble. It's not hard to think of a priest or two who would be considered humble, generous and noble but the legacy they leave behind has perpetuated the myths that stultify and corrupt us today.

[sorry, it's 4am here and after a heavy Saturday night I get a flossy filical]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
25-02-2012, 02:43 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
I think I made a bad words choice, but anyway, I know our legacy can be ignoble, but you choose a bad example as I was talking about the atheist approach, so a priest wouldn't fit, and I meant that the this idea of nothing happening after we die makes our living more noble (if we make things right that is) as is not just a pursuit of eternal bliss, there's no reward for making good things, that's why I think is very selfless and that makes it even better. Instead of being nihilistic beings, we can choose to be generous people, that's nice Big Grin

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
25-02-2012, 03:01 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
(25-02-2012 02:43 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I think I made a bad words choice, but anyway, I know our legacy can be ignoble, but you choose a bad example as I was talking about the atheist approach, so a priest wouldn't fit, and I meant that the this idea of nothing happening after we die makes our living more noble (if we make things right that is) as is not just a pursuit of eternal bliss, there's no reward for making good things, that's why I think is very selfless and that makes it even better. Instead of being nihilistic beings, we can choose to be generous people, that's nice Big Grin

Not a bad choice of words... it was poetry man!

btw I'm blind drunk so anything I say in the next few hours should not be taken in any way seriously

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
25-02-2012, 04:42 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
Considering the forces of evolution:
We not only have a drive to survive to reproduce, but we seem to have a drive to help the next generation succeed.

There is no doubt that most of us would accept death to save one of our children. What makes this instinct so powerful? Is it illogical?

We may not be unselfish at all, as selfishness may lay in our protection of a future generation of our genes, if our genes are calling the shots after all.

We may just be slaves to our genetic programming in the cases of both self-preservation and self-sacrifice.
The genes see the big picture and an individual of a species is sacrificed as part of the bigger plan.

It would make perfect sense that a successful species would carry this trait.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
25-02-2012, 06:19 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
I must be selfish because I don't have a drive to reproduce. Maybe, knowing what I know about life, my genes don't feel the need to be past on. I guess this is free will on my part,and some would say I had no free will , because I had no control over my life experiences that led to not wanting to pass on genes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 10:57 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2012 10:59 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Psychology Today article.
(25-02-2012 06:19 PM)satan69 Wrote:  I must be selfish because I don't have a drive to reproduce. Maybe, knowing what I know about life, my genes don't feel the need to be past on. I guess this is free will on my part,and some would say I had no free will , because I had no control over my life experiences that led to not wanting to pass on genes.

As Hitch once said... Of course I have free will; I had no choice in the matter!
(25-02-2012 04:42 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Considering the forces of evolution:
We not only have a drive to survive to reproduce, but we seem to have a drive to help the next generation succeed.

There is no doubt that most of us would accept death to save one of our children. What makes this instinct so powerful? Is it illogical?

We may not be unselfish at all, as selfishness may lay in our protection of a future generation of our genes, if our genes are calling the shots after all.

We may just be slaves to our genetic programming in the cases of both self-preservation and self-sacrifice.
The genes see the big picture and an individual of a species is sacrificed as part of the bigger plan.

It would make perfect sense that a successful species would carry this trait.

That's exactly the way I see it.
Except for "genes see the big picture" but I'll assume that's metaphor, right?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
26-02-2012, 02:28 AM
RE: Psychology Today article.
(25-02-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  It means that the moral law of the universe is conserve entropy and simulation is the key to the future. Wink

Something is wrong. I think I understood what HoC said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: