No. We're "addicted" to beliefs. — 180 Proof

Hmm interesting... :eyes: :sparkle:

Autumn readings

• Captain Shigemoto's Mother, Jun'ichirō Tanizaki.
• Rivers, Teru Miyamoto.
• Beauty and Sadness, Yasunari Kawabata.

P.W. Zapffe, A. Camus, C. Rosset, A. Murray ... :death: — 180 Proof

:up: :sparkle:

I've found myself with a much deeper sense of respect and awe for this reality by pulling from Eastern and Western systems simultaneously; thereby bringing those contemplations into harmony with each other. — Bret Bernhoft

Complex thoughts on put Eastern and Western systems together but also interesting, indeed.

Let’s put derealization on a scale, at 0%... — Art48

So, in a society at 100%, people would have extreme engagement and appreciation of each other — Art48

And suppose it was decided that ideally society should be at 75%. — Art48

We can use to 0%-100% — Art48

"Ideal society", "engagement", "derealization" or "appreciation" are not measurable terms...

Good question :up:

Western classical philosophy has a lot of doctrines and variations. It is complex to choose one of these to explain the purpose of living. But you were specific and referred to a 20th century man so my choice goes to Absurdism. Thus, the philosophical theory that existence in general is absurd. This implies that the world lacks meaning or a higher purpose and is not fully intelligible by reason. The book called Sisyphus by Albert Camus represents this theory.

Eastern mystery traditions only (or most of the cases) focus on different "schools" of Buddhism.
Shûnyatâ is one of the most important of them. It means "emptiness". Emptiness is neither existence, nor non-existence, nor both existence and non-existence, nor neither existence nor non-existence. At the very least, this means that we don't know what is left when we take away all conditioned relations. Beyond that, it can mean that we cannot know what that is. No Self Nature means that there are no essences, just as Momentariness means that there are no substances.
Also we should point out No-Âtman: There is no Self (âtman) in Buddhism, either as an essence or as a substance. What we call our self is a collection of things, the "aggregates" (skandhas): 1) the body, or "form," 2) feelings, 3) ideas, 4) impressions, & 5) momentary consciousness.

How do you understand the concept of 'post-truth" itself?
For me it indicates ... wtf ... "alternative facts" (i.e. H. Frankfurt's bullshit). — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

From an anthropological perspective people thinking less, those not (still) trying to solve problems (all the time), could (theoretically) be better fitted to modern day society. — Seeker

But I think that's a misery. One of the things which triggers me the most is the fact that the less thinkers tend to be happier than the rest or even they can achieve good positions in their professional carriers.
To be honest, think less is the easiest way possible of existence. We are forced (sooner or later) to think and rethink about everything. This is the point of evolution of our especie and what differences us from the rest of the living world.

A socially isolated hermit is fine, but only if you can exist as a 'happy' one. — universeness

Agreed. Nonetheless, I see isolation as a cause of happiness but it is true that I never really tried myself.

Thanks for sharing and yes, I recognise myself in the symptoms.

Treatments
Bipolar disorder lasts for a lifetime, with treatments aiming at managing the symptoms by psychotherapy and medication. — universeness

I am doing it good with the exception of going to therapy.

but are you bipolar? — universeness

I don't know... that's a good question. I never went to a psychologist or psychiatric because I always thought they will never understood me.
Nevertheless... I am remembering now that one day of April the public workers of the hospital call me to just ask what is going on in my life. I answered with all my problems and insecurities.
They just answered "You have crippling depression" and they prescribed me some pills that I am currently taking every morning

I suppose the movie captures that wish as whoever the aliens are, they seem to possess such knowhow. — Agent Smith

Exactly! I see it in the same way, indeed :sparkle:

We don't know, we're ignorant of how we got to be so smart and so creative! The Monolith = Ignorance! — Agent Smith

:up: :sparkle:

Ignorance or... the torch which lights us to finish such ignorance.

On another thread, you were expressing your recent positivity/optimism. Are you often 'up the hill and down again?' — universeness

Yes. Well, I think when I wrote those lines I was medicated. I am even surprised how positive it was. Like it is weird that state of mind in my life.

Yes, I see your point. But why do you think there are differences between those groups towards the sense of gender?

Not all addictions are bad, such as addiction to life, truth seeking, fighting injustice, altruism. — universeness

Positivism/optimism! :yawn:

For example, the congruence between Hispanic American groups may vary from Black American groups, or Middle Eastern groups from European groups, seniors from youth, etc. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I do not understand your example. Are you referring to the fact that the basic sense of gender differs from one ethnic group to another?

God never gives everything to one person. — Numerius Negedius

What about Jesus Christ or Muhammad or Abraham?

Are we addicted to thought? — Xtrix

Yes, we are and this addiction is what you expect from people who don't want to be basic. Whenever you try knowledge for the first you would not stop using it because you feel you are growing as a person. There is a huge difference between the ones who are addicted to thought and the ones who do not think at all.

Are we amateur “philosophers” steeping ourselves in excess? — Xtrix

Speaking about myself, yes.

, is what is needed for better philosophy actually a fasting and detoxification of thought? — Xtrix

I would not put "better" with "fast" in the same phrase. Quality needs their own time and progress. If we really want a more qualitative philosophy we have to start to thinking a lot then. But if we think fast we have the risk of not thinking so deeply.

According to the research done by Frans de Waal, the differences are not exclusive to humans.

The Gendered Ape, Essay 3: Do Only Humans Have Genders? — Fooloso4

Thanks for sharing this link. Interesting, indeed.

Kubrick-Clarke's story is an odyssey, an endless(?) journey, rather than merely a "quest" to reach some definitive, knowable destination; and perhaps this is the Monolith's odyssey – it's simulations – not (just) ours? :chin: — 180 Proof

:sparkle: :100:

The question of simulation becomes one of who is making up who. — Paine

My bet goes to the monolith. This structure is always there and even before the appearance of humans. So, my guess is that the monolith is the one who is making up our "reality"

I hope youre saying that ironically because most sarcasm is used in a condescending way. — introbert

:smirk: :eyes:

The ironic interpretation of any text immediately subverts the writers intentions as reading it as sarcasm — introbert

But I think sarcasm can be used in an intellectual perspective. It is even a tricky tool to maintain the conversation alive and their nature can show off the intelligence of a person. To be honest, I cannot see sarcasm used with bad faith or malice

Irony exists as kind of an argument and to acknowledge it accepts an internal inconsistency in its object. — introbert

Yes, agreed. But irony is used as a tool to get benefits too. To be honest, I am bad at using irony because I connect such act with lying...
Irony is like an appropriate use of good words (or intentions) but holds a mask behind of it which seems to be dangerous...
Governments and governors tend to speak with a lot of irony. They call it "rethoric skills" I label it as "sick liars"

Of all the philosophical ubiquities, the most tedious is "does such-and-such really exist?"

Yes, it does, since you are talking about it. — Banno

:clap: :100:

Symbolically, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown – e.g. individual death; species extinction; event horizon; cosmic horizon; heat-death of the universe – the a priori strange attractor that self-organizes intellect — 180 Proof

Good explanation :up: :100:

Then this is why the hominids felt hesitation when they approached to the monolith. The unknown itself creates a lot of uncertainty and your examples are perfect. Who don't feel tension when they concern about horizon, death, cosmic time, universe significance, etc...? The monolith gathers all of these archetypes. But exactly in this concept... how can we treat the monolith? As an enemy or as an adviser?
The scene where the monolith appears "again" in the moon is important. The astronauts feel blurred but they do not hesitate and even start to investigate it... probably because the humankind evolved in the knowledge towards the monolith epicentre?

It suggests what in my book are Platonic forms of minds with typical sets of ideas, attitudes, approaches, values, and so on. Am I correct? — Agent Smith

Yes, you are correct.

But the simplicity is what it impressed me. While when I see a giant Buddha in Thailand, India, Vietnam, etc... I interpret it as tremendous and striking but not "surprising" either "interesting" because those religious figures were put there just to indoctrinate people.

If the monolith were to represent the Jungian shadow, this leaves the question of why the monolith on the moon directs mankind towards Venus, though — Tzeentch

It could be another interpretation in the same direction that the monolith simply is there to help the humankind. It could be even a criticism for not being ourselves able to make a real progress without "exterior help" like if the monolith would never been there we as specie would never developed our knowledge.

It's supposedly far more likely that the monolith simply assembled itself from nearby matter & energy and did its thing than that it were constructed and placed at the watering hole by a super-advanced alien civilization? Interesting, oui? — Agent Smith

It is literally what I think about the nature of the monolith. It is clear that is an abstract object which is far more intelligent than human race. I guess we treat it as "complex" because we don't understand it. Our knowledge didn't increased that much to have the same language as a monolith.
But we have an interesting question here... does the monolith understand us?

pointed out, the monolith appears to be rather simple. — Agent Smith

A simplicity full of complexities.

could the monolith be a symbol for the Jungian shadow self? — Tzeentch

Indeed. The article I read days ago made a lot of references to Jung's archetypes. The author of the article defined the monolith as an "unconscious symbol who shares common characteristics to all the civilisations"

Well, I guess it is better to share the quote itself:

Revealing that the monolith is inspired by the theory of Jungian archetypes devised by Carl Jung, this concept is defined by images and themes that derive from the collective unconscious. Jung believed that certain symbols from different cultures are often very similar as they have been developed from archetypes shared by a collective human unconscious.

Even Kubrick in the interview said: That’s why we settled on the black monolith — which is, of course, in itself something of a Jungian archetype...

Apophenia/Pareidolia? — Agent Smith

Yes! :smile:

So, god/alien in human form was on old trope — Agent Smith

I think it is harder to believe when it appears in a human form.

Why not a black, 10 ft. tall cuboid? Now, that's something no one's seen before; — Agent Smith

No one seen before and so enigmatic and original. Sometimes simplicity makes the best impact. Now that I am deeply concerned about the archetype of the monolith... Most of the devices look like it. If you look at a cellphone closely you would see a lot similarities with a monolith.

Why did God, He would be the most advanced alien we could hope to encounter, take a human form, as Jesus? — Agent Smith

I hope to not encounter anyone at all. The mysticism of the unknown is what makes the monolith so interesting.
Nevertheless, I bet that the ones who put the monolith on earth were there previously to God and Jesus Christ :wink:

Yet, if you haven't seen it, what experience do you base the knowledge on? — Tate

:up: :100:

it is illegal to use marijuana because of supposed harm it causes, but the widespread enforcement of the law creates much more harm.

Why? The enforcement of law towards the use of marijuana is based on prevent health problems. I do not see it as irony... It could be a good example of this if the state uses it with the aim of collecting taxes from the citizens as they already do with alcohol and tobacco.

The first, on the plains of Africa, is used to improve Moonwatcher's intelligence. The second, in orbit around Jupiter (Saturn in the book) is used to transport Bowman via a worm hole. The third, in the Hotel room, transforms him into a "star child"... — Banno

the moon stuff in your description — Paine

Interesting. We can interpret monoliths were put by aliens to "test" the habitants of earth and since the first one on the Plains of Africa, there were three different monoliths making an important impact to our actions.
Nonetheless, despite the monolith has a weird atmosphere of the unknown we cannot say if it was put on the earth with negative purposes. If they tried to communicate with us through the monoliths we can think the aliens intended to be "diplomatic"... or the simple fact that there always been a clever civilisation watching our lives.

or a silent harbinger from an alien source which seeks to guide humans at key moments. — Tom Storm

I like your theory because it could mean that aliens would help us and be our partners. Aliens tend to be represented as "enemies" or "intruders" of the humans or earth.
But what could be a key moment for humans? The fine line between us and the other species who didn't evolved like the humankind?

(If you want to entertain a particularly spooky thought - our society is completely filled with monoliths - computer/telephone/tv screens.) — Tzeentch

:fire: :100: :clap:

Interesting point of view and very argumentative answer. I have perceived that most of you interpret the monolith as a characteristic of technology.
Nevertheless, sometimes I tried to think as a "proof" of this advanced and specific technology. I mean, probably the monolith was put there as a sign of a older but wiser civilisation who habited the earth previously to hominids, thus us as humans.
The most mind blowing scene is when the monolith appears again in the moon... it is a very substantive scene. We can also interpret that we are behind of something else. Whenever we progress into something new a rare civilisation already did it or was there and I think the monolith is a "proof" that "we do not discover anything" because a different civilisation already did it.

Do you know Rob Ager and his YouTube channel Collative Learning? He has a lot of material on Kubrick movies, including 2001 and the meaning of the monolith. — Tzeentch

No, I never heard of him. I going to check him out.

It seems to me that Brandan Morris, one of my favorite sci fi writers, observed a batch of monoliths on Enceladus some years in our future, They weren't doing much, but they had rescued Frank Poole? the astronaut who HAL9000 had tossed into space--his mental being, anyway.

I thought the monoliths were perfect as aliens: strange, mysterious, other-worldly, potent, awesome (in the original meaning of the word), etc. — Bitter Crank

Exactly, this is the same feeling I have when I saw the monolith. It is there not doing much but at the same time it makes a rare atmosphere because you can feel the abstract object "should not be there" because it is not the "correct" place for a monolith.
Thanks for sharing your view on the book. I never read it but I think I should give it a try the next year. It seems to be a good book.

To the extent that encounters with the monolith has 'made' us into something, the crisis with the AI named HAL show us another collision of the natural with the artificial. — Paine

:up: :100: