Philosophical nihilism strikes me as true. Which means homo sap has control of its own values and meaning. Whig history - which might also be called naive Enlightenment thinking seems on trend within what we call GameA. Harari is clearly a late-GameA amerlorist thinker.
-
-
Replying to @jim_rutt @HiFromMichaelV
A lot of people seem to think that you can manifest an arbitrary aesthetics (i.e. way the world works) using arbitrary values, or that the most desirable world will form based on acting on the values they have. Both positions are wrong. Values are fully constrained by aesthetics.
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
If we agree on specifications, for instance maintaining ecological complexity, or building the most lucid civilization, or playing the longest games, our aesthetics may converge, and our values are not going to be arbitrary.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
You are free to drop your identifications with maintaining any system (ego, relationships, group, nation, species, God, life, consciousness, complexity), which also makes you free to drop all your values and reach Nirvana. There is nothing you have to do if you stop caring.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Nihilism seems to be a kind of suffering, caused by the fundamental absence of a way to realize one's meaning, and the inability to stop caring. It usually happens when you prove that God does not exist, but don't give up your need for God's existence.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @HiFromMichaelV
When I say that I am a nihilist I mean that I reject any universalist claims about values or meaning. My view is that it is up to each grouping of humans to select their values and meaning to live by. Values systems that work are constrained by reality, including human nature.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
To my mind, such nihilism is incredibly empowering: WE can and must craft our own social operating system. No exogenous voodoo.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jim_rutt @HiFromMichaelV
I know that you think that! Yet you and me are bound by more innate rules than those that we managed to rationally reverse engineer at the moment (we can do so as we become older and wiser). If the structure of shared meaning becomes intentional, we traditionally call it God.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
It is a disaster that our religions obfuscated God with mythology. The specification of the superorganism follows from game theory, cybernetics and our ecology. It is the platonic form of an enduring civilization.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @HiFromMichaelV
I'm not much on Platonic Forms arguments for God. Strikes me as no better than the Ontological Argument. Why is a God needed for an enduring civilization? It's a challenge but no obvious reason that it is impossible at least if we define enduring reasonably, say 500 years.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Large parts of the Christian cult market have told us that God is an external entity, and somehow involved into universe creation, talkative burning bushes and major weather events. Instead, God is an organization we can choose to be part of.
-
-
-
Replying to @jim_rutt @HiFromMichaelV
A civilization can be thought of as a scalable and growth oriented imperial machine that people submit to, which was the modernist project. Or it is an intentional organism formed of sentient cells. God as the soul of a civilization, an emergent software.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.