Jump to content

What Did Your Parents Do Wrong, Really?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

Yes! That's exactly it. That generation had "a way" that had worked wonders for them and achieved amazing things. And they didn't even question that if their children followed in their exact footsteps, similar results would follow. Which of course wouldn't have been the case, and the kids picked up on this.

 

 

It's pretty ironic - the parents began in Troubles and ended in Plenty. The kids were born into Plenty and wound up In Trouble.

 

nat whilk ii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It's pretty ironic - the parents began in Troubles and ended in Plenty. The kids were born into Plenty and wound up In Trouble.


nat whilk ii

 

 

 

And this is because [drum roll, please] because no human lives for money, conspicuous prestige and comfort.

 

We tell ourselves that that is the highest goal of life. But the secret, nasty truth is that..... it isn't.

 

We Boomers created this current Recession.... because we secretly know that mindless comfort is not the highest good... though every magazine and TV show tells us it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yet that is the truth of the matter.

 

I always liked how the genetic biology guys put it in their field "the purpose of a chicken is to make more eggs"

 

The sole purpose of life is self-perpetuation. Otherwise called survival. Both in the short term, and the long term. Extending out from self to family, friends, tribe/community, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Also for the record, one of my core beliefs about modern Western generational differences is this - what differs most between generations is their respective illusions.


nat whilk ii

 

 

 

And never before in history have we had a mass media this huge--- and tightly knit and laser-focused--- with which to celebrate our illusions...

 

Today, the media could proclaim that the sky was green.... and 80% of the public would buy it without a whimper. Tell us to drop $500 on a pair of shoes consisting of little more than a leather strap--- and that becomes the new desiderata.

 

Change our faces with plastic surgery... because our ethnic endowments were "wrong".

 

And we thought Leni Riefenstahl's movies were "perniciously influential"?

 

Don't look for the American public to "get mad" anytime soon about our reliance on fossil fuels... or our despoilation of the biosphere.... or the drug company monopolies... or our engagements in Iraq and other venues. We're too erotically turned on and hypnotized by television and movies. As monkeys, we're designed that way; our pushbuttons aren't hard to find.

 

In 1976, Paddy Chayefsky's NETWORK.... was just a comedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Sounds grim to me, however true it might be.

 

 

Well, it really isn't the only purpose of life. Humans do seem to have an innate desire to do creative, meaningful work. Yes, that gives us a survival advantage, or did in times past, but in a modern world where the survival advantage is somewhat disconnected from our work and creative output, that becomes kinda irrelevant.

 

The bottom line is that wallowing in mindless comfort and safety tends to make people unhealthy and depressed, because they want to have something useful to contribute - so they start looking for problems to solve - even to the point where they'll create them, if necessary. I think that's close to the point you were trying to make, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

.....and our minds the battlegrounds for perpetuating memes....



big ones, tall ones, fat ones, small ones, but memes nonetheless....

 

 

From that genetics view, that itself (even "mind" or a neuroliguistic idea of a meme) is an emergent condition OF that self-organization of the genetic material..interestingly though, it doesn't have to be a "battlegournd", it can be that would be an opponent processes, but we can also have proponent processes and oblique processes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Sounds grim to me, however true it might be.

 

 

that would be in keeping with the "nasty" part you mentioned

 

but it doesn't have to be, you'll likely find that "seems" sentiment

any time you have the

But the secret, nasty truth.....

 

because it allows a single, subjective viewer to assign "the truth"

It is interesting, though, to think about the "grim" part -- how if we use "grimness" as we see it, as a metric for validity

we can be engaging in the self-optimizing behavior that can grow from that "mean genes" type system (ie we structure the philosophy to maximally benefit "us", whatever that "us" may be)

 

now the funky thing is, we may not be as "individual" or as cohesive and homogenous as we tend to often think and at what level "us" can be up for different views

 

it's a hitch with

But the secret, nasty truth.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

New Age wisdom tells us to slow down and enjoy the passing of time....

 

But I can't, dammit, I can't. And not sure I even want to. That's MY neurosis.

 

Part of me would also like to become a Zen monk; another part of me feels that's ostrich behavior and good ol' fashioned group mind control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

New Age wisdom tells us to slow down and enjoy the passing of time....


But I can't, dammit, I can't.
And not sure I even
want
to.
That's MY neurosis.

.

 

 

saw a funny bio line on that once

"On the cellular level, I'm actually quite busy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There's an anecdote about Heinrich Schenker, the big-time music theoritician who developed a method for reducing musical compositions down to what he considered the Fundamental Structure (which left things out like modulation (!!) and rhythm(!!!!)) from the "real" "basic" "truth" of a composition....a well-known composer was perusing one of Schenkers reductionist diagrams of a famous piece of music, and said, "where is that little melody in that section?" to which Schenker replied "that melody is of no consequence to the Fundamental Structure".

 

To which the composer replied, "Those little melodies in that piece are the only reasons I listen to it at all!"

 

In context of current discussion of "life is" boiled down to abstractions of biological survival instinct - sometimes a reductive analysis removes the only things that make a given subject of any interest or value at all...

 

nat whilk ii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

In context of current discussion of "life is" boiled down to abstractions of biological survival instinct - sometimes a reductive analysis removes the only things that make a given subject of any interest or value at all...

 

 

It doesn't have to - in the gen-bio perspective that idea of "interest" of having "mind" to be interested can be an emergent facet OF the promotion of replication/organization.

In that view, it's not removing, it's actually generating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'd be put in prison were I to act on that.

 

 

 

(I suppose that thought implies that action is required for meaning, has some implications in the "in-valid" view of "invalid")

 

There is another strategy...don't get caught!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It doesn't have to - in the gen-bio perspective that idea of "interest" of having "mind" to be interested can be an emergent facet OF the promotion of replication/organization.

In that view, it's not removing, it's actually generating

 

 

Still brings an image in my head of "interest" and "mind" and other ontologically neat stuff like "meaning" and "love" and "me" as little twittering dependent empheral phenomena sprouting uselessly and without consequence in the nooks and crannies of a giant, remorseless, unconscious machine called "Survival Instinct".

 

Bleahhh

 

:)

 

 

nat whilk ii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Still brings an image in my head of "interest" and "mind" and other ontologically neat stuff like "meaning" and "love" and "me" as little twittering dependent empheral phenomena sprouting uselessly and without consequence in the nooks and crannies of a giant, remorseless, unconscious machine called "Survival Instinct".


Bleahhh


:)

 

Yes, a lot of people seem to be trying really hard to promote such an image, but I think it's wrong... see my previous post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Still brings an image in my head of "interest" and "mind" and other ontologically neat stuff like "meaning" and "love" and "me" as little twittering dependent empheral phenomena sprouting uselessly and without consequence in the nooks and crannies of a giant, remorseless, unconscious machine called "Survival Instinct".

 

 

 

 

In that gen-bio view (I'm not sure "survival instinct" is the best phrase -- we can apply it sub instinct, and I am concerned "survival" will lead to assumptions about what an individual "unit" has to be) things such as consciousness, remorse would, again, be emergent facets of that

and it would actually point to something NOT being ephemeral nor useless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...