Owl conversation re: exercising mental flexibility and the strange coincidence of materialism and solipsism

You have anything on your mind this week?

General musings on how most people don’t actually believe other people exist and cannot conceive that their actions can have consequences for others
Nothing groundbreaking
“Rule by unprincipled exception versus rule by principled injustice” is fertile ground for thought.
it’s a slippery see-saw
principles basically only have force when they are unyielding, but no principle can account for all possibilities
A truly principled society will inevitably be undone by an unfortunate consequence of principle

Maybe the reason paradoxes are so common is the flexibility they allow for shimmying types of forward motion.
I think I may be reinventing Heidegger’s idea of dialectic.

Well they force you to confront the fact that there’s either an inconsitency in your beliefs or you’re conceptualizing something the wrong way
this is why they are such a useful tool for education
one could lay a strong foundation for potential wisdom by doing nothing more than studying paradoxes and memorizing proverbs

I’d grant that they encourage mental flexibility, but I’m inclined to constrain the value of that.
Children’s minds and bodies are flexible by nature and there’s no use in having them stretch.
There’s some value for adolescents.
It’s very important for adults, who tend to hurt themselves through rigidity.
I wonder what’s the mental equivalent of tai chi.

Reasoning from first principles?
I would say that though haha

Meditating on paradoxes is more like isometric stretching.
Well, reasoning from first principles tai chi is about gently taking every joint of the body through it’s motion.
Correction: Taking every joint through its motion, multiple of which in tandem to practice the mental attitude necessary for coordination.
What’s the equivalent of a mental “joint”?

oooo…that’s actually a really good question
taboos? emotional blockages?

I suppose a mental joint means the axis along which strength/ability can be exercised, so it would be the different types of intelligence.

So mental tai chi would be the gentle application of all the submodules of IQ.
I.e. Relaxed, wide-ranging conversation that stretches verbal and performance in tandem, say by walking along the beach.
So there you go, mental tai chi is going for a walk through the woods and talking through various easy problems with someone.

This feels emotionally satisfying
I like it so much that I distrust it, but i can’t see an easy refutation
But this is probably correct
And it takes us back to Aristotle so we’re in good company

How about going back to your solipsism -> transference one?
Or maybe a better formula would be solipsism -> impunity.
Here’s another paradox for you: why do materialism and solipsism correlate?
Philosophically, you’d expect the opposite.
Solipsism: “Only I exist.”
Materialism: “The existence of what I call ‘me’ is an illusion created by things that actually exist and are not me.”
“There is only mind.”
“There is only matter.”
And yet, decadence predicts them both very strongly.
Is it nothing more complicated than rationalizing moral impunity?
Why then do both also correlate with bigly IQs, which also correlates with a revealed preference for moral behavior?

I suppose the core factor is individual morality.
Call it “locus of judgment”.

The difference being a sensitivity to consequences as part of the bargain. A high-functioning person inclines to solipsism and materialism due to an attitude of extreme ownership, i.e. “I alone can cause anything (solipsism), but I must be mindful that the effects are exactly what I intend (materialism).”
A low-functioning person inclines to solipsism and materialism due to an attitude of extreme disownment. “I alone can experience pleasure and pain (solipsism), and nothing else matters anyway (materialism).”
So the difference is mostly in the way they come to materialism. The smartypants gets there by the necessity of pragmatism and empiricism, and the criminal gets there by mental simplicity.
In either case we have the self-justifying, acting man so admired by insecure intellectuals.

hehe

Primitives and mad scientists.
Rick and Morty.
/fin

The society that can support materialism is the one in which people don’t need to really engage with others to survive
Hence, no need to really believe in other people

I was just thinking that. Materialism is a post-materialist morality.

Operationally speaking, how does one cure this? Hard to see an approach that doesn’t involve repeated exposure to painful consequences

Materialism is, in the case of both the brute and the mad scientist, an expression of the will to power.
People living in scarcity have more of a “will-to-food”.
But power can be described as the confident assurance of future food.
If someone had the sense to experience privation willingly, I’d probably suggest fasting.
It’s the most direct.
And you don’t have to plan a trip to the Himalayas.
But I guess some people have nothing better to do or talk about than wOrLd TrAveL.

Well it’s the same “will-to-power” of materialism just expressed very slightly differently
“will-to-self-satisfy”
will-to-dopamine
will-to-wirehead

I done figured it out. It’s just habituation.
People travel because they get bored, and they talk about it because getting bored means you’re rich.
My indifference to the appeal of new scenery comes from my extreme resistance to habituation.
Probably from living in my head, if we’re being honest.
I don’t get bored of the tree outside my window here because I barely register it anyway.

People aspire to be bored because they think that it means they’re deep

I don’t think dimwits aspire to be bored, but yes I can see that as a midwit thing.
I think for dimwits it’s just a status signal they recognize.
Speaking as a deep person, the characteristic signal you’re looking for is disappointment.

Ca depend

In fact, I’d describe tragedy as the high end of disappointment.
Hence the association.

I’m inclined to agree with that
What makes a tragedy a tragedy is that it could have been avoided
somewhere along the line unwise choices were made
we find ourselves disappointed that different outcomes did not take place

Useful memes here:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-i-watched-what-i-expected-what-i-got
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/surprised-pikachu

and ideally think about how we could have done better and will do better in the future, which was originally the point

Uh oh, I’m experiencing focus problems from the context switch to memes.

🤣

Me: Starts looking up memes

Also me: loses all focus

Pikachu face

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Owl conversation re: exercising mental flexibility and the strange coincidence of materialism and solipsism

  1. ShadoHand says:

    `why do materialism and solipsism correlate?`

    “Look Kiddo. This is the United States of America. You have to do everything yourself. If you dont own a snow plow and have access to your own fire truck something is wrong with you. You have to plow the roads you drive on. And out the fire out on your house with your own fire truck. Other people dont exist. They are just figments of your imagination. And even of its proved somehow that they are real, well tough shit, because nobody owes anybody anything. Its gimme, gimme, gimme that always and forver. Grow up and do everything yourself. Everything!”

    This is how most Americans think and act.

    • ShadoHand says:

      Solipism in America means Accountability. 110% Personal Acountability. You have to fireproof your house, run a single scope background check on everyone within a 100 mile radius. Have cameras on your house. Build a wall and a moat around it. And now you need a fleet of drones to detect possible sniper fire from 1000 yards. You also need bullet proof windows. Oh and you need to make sure the house is on an oil well, and theres a small amount of weapons grade nuclear material.

      This is the be all end all of Solipistic toxic individualism. Also its all in your head according to psychiatry, so you are just paranoid for doing all this. Remember, now other people dont exist.

  2. MM says:

    >why do materialism and solipsism correlate?

    Oh that’s easy.
    Its just like those that treat science as a religion despite that being precisely opposed to the philosophy of science. It serves a very deep psychological need. Nobody can live without some kind of ‘magic’ (ignorance counts)- if the conscious mind attempts this the rest of the brain will rebel to some degree (the absolute minimum is ignorance via distraction, especially EMOTIONALLY. A few hours is probably the maximum for something like ‘actual emotional awareness of death as end of universe’ before that either gets distracted away or turns into psychosis (which is a defense mechanism the body- or non-conscious brain- has to protect it from a mind acting against its interests, a bit like depression. Lovecraft understood this well).

    Narcissists: there is no god—> I am god
    Materialists: only things that exist matter—-> I am the only thing that exists

    (religious narcissists also exist as stated emissaries of God with sacred knowledge or anointment. See- Glosoli and many/perhaps all others.)

    Those that lose (or never had) religious faith become narcissistic to cope. Mortification past this point will lead to psychosis, which leads to politics-as-religion (why leftism beats conservatism- its a religion), some kind of religious awakening, or schizophrenia (a more intense psychosis in which the mind is trying to reconstruct a viable schema for general meaning of the self, especially emotionally. As RD Laing noted, a schizophrenic’s symptoms often disappear the moment they think someone actually cares about them)

    True self awareness will always be subject to collapse because it is at odds with all the selection mechanisms, and the body is of the opinion that it wants to continue (and children fulfill this). The bare minimum people can (sustainably) live with is an immortality project (sans drugs or cum machine, which actually are ‘sustainable’ but very bad options if you still are attached to even the possibility that life could matter).

    The only materialists that will be fully honest are those who derive meaning from… accuracy? I can’t explain this well… its like a really weird mutation of the narcissistic defense mechanism- which makes alot of sense once you see how ‘geniuses’/creatives act towards their creations (“protect narcissistic supply!!!”) even if they are objectively trite or the person in question has already written that post a dozen times (Tale as old as… me?).

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      > As RD Laing noted, a schizophrenic’s symptoms often disappear the moment they think someone actually cares about them

      Whoa, big it true. Which book is this?

    • Big says:

      This ends up overshadowing the actual post.

      • MM says:

        Aeoli is in the hypomania stage of his cycle (again) so things will be shitty and moderately grandiose for a bit before we get back to the good and depressing stuff as his various dreams fall apart in tandem with the worsening economic/social situation into FY 23/24.

        I’m just a dead man (still) walking, hence the honesty about our world.

        Still, I really do appreciate it. Whoever you (in reality) are.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          You’re more familiar with my historical pattern than I am. What’s the typical period on my cycle?

          • MM says:

            What would game theory say about helping a being that only believes in negative reciprocity (and weakly for even that)?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              To do what you feel like doing.

              Incidentally, you just explained to me why the highest status I can attain in the minds of others is “force of nature”. Perceptual categories are determined as “thing for doing X” and a person is the category “thing for get goodfeelz”, so if pressing the lever is unrelated to whether a pellet cones out then there’s no reason to press it.

            • MM says:

              Hey now… I’ve already read that blog post:

              “I’m blessed to have already been trained for dealing with unreasonable people by Al-Anon. You don’t negotiate with women, or Jews, or blacks, or Boomers, and especially not with neurotypicals. They will NEVER feel a sense of social reciprocity toward you. They are either at your feet or at your throat. Your only options are a slow death as they pretend to buy in with the conscious intention to defect every time, or to convince them you’re a force of nature. Doing this is simple, but difficult and counterintuitive.”
              https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/detaching-from-normies-vs-defooing-them/

              I’m more than happy to prove you wrong on the reciprocity front after reading THAT in the context of what you just wrote @ me. You’d better have a good excuse… Have I misunderstood something here? You, after all, made that reference for a reason…

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              It’s going to take me a minute to figure out what you’re talking about so I’ll defer that to my next trip to the sauna. You’re doing too many levels of implications implying implications for me to do it in a rush.

            • MM says:

              I’ll do the work for you. I’m used to it.

              1. “Incidentally, you just explained to me why the highest status I can attain in the minds of others is “force of nature”.”

              2. “I’m blessed to have already been trained for dealing with unreasonable people by Al-Anon. You don’t negotiate with women, or Jews, or blacks, or Boomers, and especially not with neurotypicals. They will NEVER feel a sense of social reciprocity toward you. They are either at your feet or at your throat. Your only options are a slow death as they pretend to buy in with the conscious intention to defect every time, or to convince them you’re a force of nature. Doing this is simple, but difficult and counterintuitive.””

              I am asking if statement 1 is a call back to statement 2, implying that I (a neurotypical in this context) will either be at your feet or at your throat? “Explained” in your statement being a sarcastic statement of a plausibly deniable sense of intellectual superiority (a joke to yourself of sorts).

              Writing it all out, this does seem a bit beyond a typical aspie, but you aren’t typical (I think your Id is very normie)…

              The thing is, if you are actually becoming a normie (impossible, you can only switch to narc-aspie hybrid of some kind) there are not many mental situations in which you will answer this truthfully, and in fact your last statement was a feint to throw me off.

              My theory is that your logical aspie mind sees value in me (in some indeterminate way) but your Id sees me as a threat because of my propensity towards deconstruction, and it is ultimately in the driver’s seat in the way that matters (actually giving a shit, or being passive agressive).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s