Thursday, March 8, 2007
on sadness
it is nighttime. i am walking across a plot of land without grass, without trees, covered in deep tire tracks. the earth has just been cleared for the destruction of a house. the tire tracks a remnant of the destruction. it is cold and poorly lit. the land is barren and lifeless. i wish i could cry, but i am unable. i am numbed. unable to be happy, unable to be sad. drugged either way. i wish i could feel.
Monday, March 5, 2007
on happiness, part II
i feel like i should write about this somewhere or other, and i'm feeling the blog over the journal for this one - it should at least be available for someone to read sometime. i suppose that is the purpose of all this nonsense, anyway, right?
well, here goes, happiness, part II:
i'm in a class about "Conceptions of Human Nature" - basically talking about how/if humans are unique, and what we should do about this. we talk about rationality and the potential for "happiness" a lot.
about a month ago i came up with this:
if -
the goal of human life is happiness
and -
we've been knowingly evolving
why aren't we all the happiest yet?
either we're confused: happiness isn't our goal (maybe it's the pursuit that we want), or we've never explicitly set out and consciously evolved with this aim, or there are other forces that have come between our evolution and ultimate happiness.
why are they called "intentional communities"? what are the rest? would this suggest that evolution (social evolution) is not guided (i.e. by people)?
it seems like we're lacking an explicit collective social consciousness, but [[i think]] we rely on it nonetheless.
today, march 5th, as i was walking to my spanish class i was thinking:
this place makes my stomach hurt. it makes me sad - but i don't even know what that means anymore. walking to class all i see is destruction, sadness, death. i see no value. i see a system where replace this notion of value with an idea of money, a set of numbers and unintelligible rules. i am ashamed. i am ashamed of my part in it all. for i no longer know what to say - how to relate - how to relate to someone so used to being left alone, blinded and convinced that consumption, an iPod, a cell phone will solve these problems. institutions have become the community. they must - how else will we find ourselves, others? who works for whom? am i a slave to institutions - or otherwise? why is it this relationship: master & slave? in communities there is no such thing, no such potential.
later, we were talking about nihilism in class. basically it's like "why don't we all just kill ourselves..." and there is no answer. or, well, the answer is like this: if we killed ourselves it wouldn't matter anyway, so what's even the point of that. if it happens it happens.
right.
and in the class right after that, Social Cognition (300 level Psychology class), we're talking about "Subjective Well-Being" (the measure psych'ists have come up to approach what normal people call happiness)...
here's some scary shit:
-in 1940, only 40% of houses had showers or baths, and only 35% had toilets.
between 1957 and 1998 in America:
-"real wages" (i.e. spending power, adjusted for inflation) doubled
-but subjective well-being basically stayed the same. 33-35% of people report themselves as, "very happy"
what does this all mean? that money, and/or quality of life doesn't make us happy?
what is the purpose of life, if not the pursuit of happiness? are we moving closer to this ideal collectively? do we have any hope as a species?
needless to say, today was kind of a depressing day.
well, here goes, happiness, part II:
i'm in a class about "Conceptions of Human Nature" - basically talking about how/if humans are unique, and what we should do about this. we talk about rationality and the potential for "happiness" a lot.
about a month ago i came up with this:
if -
the goal of human life is happiness
and -
we've been knowingly evolving
why aren't we all the happiest yet?
either we're confused: happiness isn't our goal (maybe it's the pursuit that we want), or we've never explicitly set out and consciously evolved with this aim, or there are other forces that have come between our evolution and ultimate happiness.
why are they called "intentional communities"? what are the rest? would this suggest that evolution (social evolution) is not guided (i.e. by people)?
it seems like we're lacking an explicit collective social consciousness, but [[i think]] we rely on it nonetheless.
today, march 5th, as i was walking to my spanish class i was thinking:
this place makes my stomach hurt. it makes me sad - but i don't even know what that means anymore. walking to class all i see is destruction, sadness, death. i see no value. i see a system where replace this notion of value with an idea of money, a set of numbers and unintelligible rules. i am ashamed. i am ashamed of my part in it all. for i no longer know what to say - how to relate - how to relate to someone so used to being left alone, blinded and convinced that consumption, an iPod, a cell phone will solve these problems. institutions have become the community. they must - how else will we find ourselves, others? who works for whom? am i a slave to institutions - or otherwise? why is it this relationship: master & slave? in communities there is no such thing, no such potential.
later, we were talking about nihilism in class. basically it's like "why don't we all just kill ourselves..." and there is no answer. or, well, the answer is like this: if we killed ourselves it wouldn't matter anyway, so what's even the point of that. if it happens it happens.
right.
and in the class right after that, Social Cognition (300 level Psychology class), we're talking about "Subjective Well-Being" (the measure psych'ists have come up to approach what normal people call happiness)...
here's some scary shit:
-in 1940, only 40% of houses had showers or baths, and only 35% had toilets.
between 1957 and 1998 in America:
-"real wages" (i.e. spending power, adjusted for inflation) doubled
-but subjective well-being basically stayed the same. 33-35% of people report themselves as, "very happy"
what does this all mean? that money, and/or quality of life doesn't make us happy?
what is the purpose of life, if not the pursuit of happiness? are we moving closer to this ideal collectively? do we have any hope as a species?
needless to say, today was kind of a depressing day.
Deep Ecology - Ecosophy
Deep Ecology sounds really cool (Syn: applicable, necessary, practical).
How about this "...to the extent that we perceive boundaries, we fall short of deep ecological consciousness."
From http://home.clara.net/heureka/gaia/deep-eco.htm :
*(Self-realization"can be summarized symbolically as the realization of "self-in-Self" where "Self" stands for organic wholeness. The proces of the full unfolding of the self can aalso ber summarized by the phrase, "No one is saved until we are all saved," where the phrase "one" includes not only me, an individual human, but all humans, whales, grizzly bears, whole rain forest ecosystems, mountains and rivers, the tiniest microbes in the soil, and so on." From book: Environmental Ethics, ISBN: 0195139097)
Arne Naess formally defined deep ecology as Ecosophy T (N - norm, H - hypothesis).
N1: Self-realization!
H1: The higher the Self-realization attained by anyone, the broader and deeper the identification with others.
H2: The higher the level of Self-realization attained by anyone, the more its further increase depends upon the Self-realization of others.
H3: Complete Self-realization of anyone depends on that of all.
N2: Self-realization for all living beings!
H4: Diversity of life increases Self-realization potentials.
N3: Diversity of life!
H5: Complexity of life increases Self-realization potentials.
N4: Complexity!
H6: Life resources of the Earth are limited.
H7: Symbiosis maximises Self-realization potentials under conditions of limited resources.
N5: Symbiosis!
Foundations for Deep Ecology, Arne Naess and George Sessions
1) The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth; intrinsic value; inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2) Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4) Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
5) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
6) Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7) The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
How about this "...to the extent that we perceive boundaries, we fall short of deep ecological consciousness."
From http://home.clara.net/heureka/gaia/deep-eco.htm :
*(Self-realization"can be summarized symbolically as the realization of "self-in-Self" where "Self" stands for organic wholeness. The proces of the full unfolding of the self can aalso ber summarized by the phrase, "No one is saved until we are all saved," where the phrase "one" includes not only me, an individual human, but all humans, whales, grizzly bears, whole rain forest ecosystems, mountains and rivers, the tiniest microbes in the soil, and so on." From book: Environmental Ethics, ISBN: 0195139097)
Arne Naess formally defined deep ecology as Ecosophy T (N - norm, H - hypothesis).
N1: Self-realization!
H1: The higher the Self-realization attained by anyone, the broader and deeper the identification with others.
H2: The higher the level of Self-realization attained by anyone, the more its further increase depends upon the Self-realization of others.
H3: Complete Self-realization of anyone depends on that of all.
N2: Self-realization for all living beings!
H4: Diversity of life increases Self-realization potentials.
N3: Diversity of life!
H5: Complexity of life increases Self-realization potentials.
N4: Complexity!
H6: Life resources of the Earth are limited.
H7: Symbiosis maximises Self-realization potentials under conditions of limited resources.
N5: Symbiosis!
Foundations for Deep Ecology, Arne Naess and George Sessions
1) The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth; intrinsic value; inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2) Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4) Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
5) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
6) Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7) The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)