Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Serotonin (Part 1)

BlueDreams
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:03:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm currently writing a short book that I have given the preliminary name "Serotonin". I would like to post it here to see if it has any literary or philosophical merit in order to determine if further work on this book would be fruitful or not.
BlueDreams
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:03:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The words of a dying robot:
Recitations of Lorentzian manifolds
Will not save me from despondency and its hold
The mechanisms of my mind are an ever-recurring gear of rote memorization and triviality
The condition of knowing the facts of life and never being it
From the lack of life and vitality
I conclude that I am only somebody else"s reference material

Perhaps one day the angels could prove themselves
By lobotomizing this paranoid robot
A salvation, an affirmation of life, or not
Time tears the pages out, and I"m forgot
But what is dying without the process?

Anxiety and dread fill the AI head
Will I present this fake exhibition until I"m dead?
"There is no calculation for affirming life", proclaimed in terror
Survey of "life"...404 error

I weaved from paradigm to paradigm. I scrawled my black ink from precipice to precipice. These heights, which I had prodigiously ascended, belied any notion of my inferiority. Still, despite this apparent conquest, I could not help but to suffer from the inescapable suggestion that I, a fraudulent poetaster, was disastrously incompetent at any significant endeavor. Yet, despite my present status as nothing more than a despondent traveler, I stand before the doorway of truth as a powerful seer. My inner voice, that constant will to truth which dominates my cognition, requires me to kick it down, or, at the very least, open it. I, the seer, must ascend the metallic stairways of this Lighthouse of Alexandria. Up, up, up, the sprialic path! Every piece of cinema has its acts, and this journey, despite its brevity, is in its second stage. As cinema, it possesses its own soundtrack, emanating the immutable sound of thunderous drums and church bells. The machinations of its rhythm can hint at nothing more than pandemonium. What did I see upon reaching the heights of this beacon? The rising tsunami that threatens to wash away an epoch of horrid and tarnished thinking! True, it has served its purpose in its proper context, but now, it must be eviscerated with the highest extremity of force and power available. It should not be said that this event is a threat, for a threat implies the state of conditionality, a may or may not. It is better said that this event is a certain, irreversible implication of present trends

I have spoken of irreversible trends. An inquisitive passerby, a witness to this metaphysical tightrope walk across history, asks what these trends may be. In response, I state we have become disillusioned. Morale, like the mind in an inebriated state, is absent of us. Such an evaluation implies that we had the possibility of valiance and courage at some point in the past, but instead lost our grasp on it for some unascertainable reason: a lack of strength, will, or whatever other words we may recite to ourselves from our mental fetal positions, born out of the primordial, puerile desire for parental protection and intervention in an insecure and uncaring worldhood. We were, however, cognizant of the notion that, as disconcerting as it may be, there was not a single opportunity at which we could remedy our horrid situation. Initially, our conscience fired us orders at a manic, frenetic pace. We were to repair the our connections and minimize the total amount of damage done to the constituent parts of our system. Soon, however, its disposition was tamed, and we found ourselves led by an increasingly unconcerned commander. Its transformation from sheer outrage to passive toleration only served to contribute to the long, drawn out process of our degradation. Progress was further stymied by the additional fact that we are all interconnected, and therefore, the domain over which we may exert any power is limited to this interconnection. As we have learned, in the most tragic and practical way, any force that strikes us outside of this range cannot be perturbed. We are, for example, hopeless to stop the inevitable thermodynamic heat death of our universe, the unstoppable consecration of quantum vacuums as the only semblance of the old physical world that we knew. In regards to these astronomical events, we lack even the most tenuous of grips, the slightest smattering of coercion, or the faintest implication of intimidation.

This is the attitude of poor, despondent whelps. Can they not see that they pull themselves down by their own self-imposed cognitive barriers? Truthfully, no external force has made us small. We have made ourselves insignificant. The causes of this degenerative feeling are multitudinous. Therefore, to trace the causes of this peculiarly modern feeling requires a synthetic approach. One could determine the precise, logical meaning of all characteristics of the degenerative feeling and still find themselves without any genuine procedures for its inoculation. It is a question that, as a question of the human experience, requires all aspects of the human experience, not the mere reduction of one of its constituent parts, even if this reduction may boast clear and definite answers. In any case, the task of combating the degenerative feeling of the modern age faces almost insurmountable barriers. It is a paradigm that is so consumed in its implicit assumptions that it blindly perpetuates itself without reference to external criticism. Indeed, the feeling of powerlessness in the face of the degenerative feeling of the modern age is a reflection of the degenerative feeling itself. We must, therefore, avoid treading within the paradigm that we seek to demolish, for if we do, then we will find ourselves working with the degenerative feeling as our background. Instead, our adder stone must be focused on absolute world disclosure.

Philosophers and writers speak often of the human condition, but speak rarely of its remedies and alleviations. Of all the implications of this degenerative feeling, I identify one as the most nefarious: that of depersonalization. In clear terms, we are in the process of losing what it means to be a human being. One may ask why this result could be considered more dangerous than any other. Relativists ask how such a selection is anything more than arbitrary whim. Depersonalization ascends to the throne of danger for the reason that, if it is allowed to succeed, no other risk or danger to the human condition matters. All other dangers to the human condition bear, by conceptual necessity, a relationship to human beings. If the meaning of humanity is lost, then so to is the conceptual grounding for these dangers, as they would be, in essence, a danger directed towards nothing. Furthermore, if depersonalization takes a full grip over the human condition, and the meaning of human experience is lost, then so to are literature, art, and science, as mediums for the manifestation of human experience.

The theme of depersonalization is not foreign to the history of thought. In Being and Time, Heidegger spoke of Das Man, an inauthentic mode of being in which one"s individuality is consumed by social pressure. Marx"s theory of alienation describes man losing his connection with his ability to shape his own nature due to class conditions. This expression, this jubilant affirmation of human life and experience, is differentiated from previous thought in that it contextualizes depersonalization as a force threatening the human condition itself, and attempts to describe depersonalization in the context of characteristically modern forces, an analysis inaccessible to such thinkers by the time in which they lived.
BlueDreams
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:03:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It has been established that depersonalization, if it is truly a force affecting the human condition, is the most threatening of all processes. We must be careful of the conditional language invoked here. If depersonalization exists, then it is the most threatening of all processes, but this statement is only important to the human condition if depersonalization actually exists. If it does not, then we are faced with nothing more than an abstract logical formulation that avails us to no extent. Therefore, I will make every effort to demonstrate the existence of depersonalization in all of its manifestations, avoiding the error of speaking in long-lettered explications about entities that may or may not exist.

In addition to this, I refuse, on ethical principles, to offer mere problems without solutions. If one acquires knowledge for the sheer purpose of becoming a living database of factual information, an archive of pure information without interpretation, then the purpose of knowledge has truly eluded them. The act of acquiring knowledge must be directed towards the betterment of the human condition. If one feels, as many have, that they are mysteriously immune from having any interest in the human condition, then they are to be reminded that the human condition is a necessary condition of their own existence, and we are thus brought into the world with an inherent, vested interest in it. On this principle, I will use the best that my cognition will offer me towards the goal of solving the problem of depersonalization.

Man sits at a bifurcation of two paths, our greatest thesis against our greatest antithesis. Are we to pull ourselves down by our own ways, or upwards, towards the ethereal, intoxicatingly spectacular realm of our greatest possible heights? Either we are to make ourselves all that we can be, or we are to make ourselves nothing. In such matters, the individual ought to take caution, for as Sartre believed, man decides what man ought to be through his own actions. The individual, through his actions, possesses the power to determine what we ought to be. If this is true, then all of us, conscious or unconscious of our responsibility, decide the fate of mankind. A single thinker may only attempt to light the correct path for us to trod.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:51:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lose the thesaurus and get your own voice...it has to be about something besides your vocabulary.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:41:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's a lot of good stuff there, but I think my biggest issue is the structure of it. There's doesn't seem to be a theme or a 'thesis' which is clearly stated, as in, something which I'm told is being argued for right away. I'm not saying that you have to do that, but I think it'd be good if it was more clear from the beginning exactly what I'm reading. For instance, if the ideas aren't meant to all tie together into one big 'point', then it could be separated into Nietzschian-style aphorisms. Or, if there is a single 'moral' behind the whole thing, then there could be a title and intro which state that pretty clearly, or even headings for each section. That way, because I know what's happening and where we're heading, I'd feel more compelled to read on.

That's not to say that it needs to be more 'conventional' or anything. I mean, even Deleuze has in his books things like, a bit at the start saying to treat his works like a 'record', where you just dip in and out however you feel. That sets up a certain expectation, an idea of what the book is & what to expect. Right now the format is a bit like being hit with a whole bunch of poetry and philosophy at once with no idea of how to get my bearings. Some people will stick that out, but a lot of people's first instinct will be to do what Sidewalker did and come up with some half-baked rationalization for dismissing it, since the work of deciphering it is too daunting without any sign-post of what is waiting for the reader on the other side of that wilderness.

I really think there is a lot of potential in many of the ideas here; it's just a case of needing a 'frame' which will do justice to the content / the sum of its parts. As for whether it has literary / philosophical merit, it certainly does.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx