the only easy day was yesterday

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Paved Paradise/Atomism 2k7

This is one big topic in my mind that I'd like you all to participate in, one that I think will, when answered, clear a lot of things up for myself. And as always, I hope that it will help you in anyway it can;

I have a hard time distinguishing between where things should be considered under the guidelines of humanity, and where, since we are a complicated emotional and conscious species, we should be considering things in the lens of transcending humanity because we are able to accomplish things that make life more pleasent. It's a decievingly simple question and I'll give you a decievingly simple example, until I can think of a more complicated one, which I will post. But for now: People perspire, we smell when we perspire; today we have products which aim to stop the perspiration and the smell of it. Furthermore we have cologne and perfume that aim to make people smell better. It seems that they might be bordering on a hyperreality, but viewed through the right objective eyes, they are enjoyable things. Which way do we consider? Humanity: fuck deodorant, we're humans and we need to respect that that is all we are and will ever be, once we come to terms with that, then we can become happy - at which point we abandon all technology and such and live in the wild (hyperbole). On the other hand if we advocate for the transcendance: So what if we want to make people smell better? We smell bad sometimes? When we finally get over ourselves then we can finally get to the business of discovering the truth in the universe by transcending what it is to be human and looking at the big picture. It's not this black an white when it's applied to more complicated issues, unfortunatley I'm drawing a blank right now, I'll try my hardest to think of a better one than that, I know that one sucks.

It does bring up another closely related quesition, though, that is intergral in answering the moral question. This question is: at what point do things stop being "natural"? We consider a beavers dam part of nature, but if I were to kick the dam and ruin it someone might say I was interfering with nature. Is writing part of nature? Bird calls are. What about this computer? I know of nothing outide of the so called manmade things that I'm calling into question here that are not natural that could've made it or it is made from. When is something not natural? Where is the line? Are we perhaps trying to transcend humanity by separating ourselves from nature? Could this be part of the modern human condition? Are not things created by the human mind and the human body natural creations? Is a death-dealing robot that was once created by a living creature something that is not made by, from, or resembling something from nature?


Nick said...

Okay that was cool.

I liked that a lot actually.

Jasper Yate said...

Alright then, Nick. No response?

The W said...

Those are some rather big questions at the end of that post. I feel that the tools (that make up our man-made environment) are just that, tools; and not natural. We have created and manipulated certain things to help (or hurt) human-kind. Example, deaderant is a tool to encourage social interaction (bad smells are distracting). Deoderant is not natural because, as humans, we naturally sweat; if we didnt we'd overheat and die. Deaderant simply reduces and masks the sweat that is notorious for being the grossest and stankiest. The remaining 95% or more of our skin surface area still sweats when it is hot (yet by its nature it does not smell as bad, or have the smae milky consistancy, as that sweat that perspires from our armpits.)

Computers are another tool, as are killer robots (which, by the way, will be the downfall of human life on this planet).

Surely the "fuck deoderant...then we can become happy - at which point we abandon all technology and such and live in the wild" view is not the path to take (i am personally opposed to an unsofistocate return to the wild, as i beleive humanity has much more to offer in constuctive civilization. But in the same thread, i am too opposed to this notion that humanity has to be transcended in order to be able to find greater meanings. Both hyper-reality and lesser existance take us away from what we are. Even if we could find truth in either existance, we would have already strayed to far from what we really are to be able to apply it again.

Jasper Yate said...

Agreed, I think entirely. I think that the 'answer' to this question is the consciousness of this issue, and the ability to recognize that we are human and that we are to expect to be nothing more; this way we ca continue to utilize useful things like cologne and deodorant (etc) but respect our humanity. This does present a problem to the mind, though. I can tell you that I appreciate my humanity and I can do so to the best of my ability, but while things like this computer and my deodorant and my car are in use it is still being absorbed in my subconscious the thoughts that have always been there about transcending humanity, etc; I fear that it may not be possible to maintain a true appreciation of humanity while these conventions are around. I'm gonna lost internet gotta end this now I'll finish it if i don't think its done later...