201–210 of 250 posts
You can select any arbitrary set of behaviors and pin a label on it. That doesn't make the label meaningful or useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, hunter-gatherer never supported a civilization. It took big Ag to feed a city full of people. The back-to-nature theme is fine for privileged landowning educated people. But the vast majority of everybody everywhere is dependent on the local grocery.
That's a choice everyone's making. There are other ways, and big Ag isn't the only one. Sitting in the current solutions instead of looking to evolve them and learning from the past isn't how hypersanity works. And yes, hypersanity is probably the most extreme form of privilege. Also, the back-to-nature theme is great, not merely fine, and something indigenous cultures are trying to reclaim as a human birthright. The…
Its 'privileged' to preach that nonsense to apartment-dwelling two-shift-working people with barely the time to visit the bodega on the way home.
Its 'privileged' to imagine this approach to live could be for more than indigenous peoples (rapidly dying out, why is that do you think?) and upper-class first-world wealthy dilettantes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a choice everyone's making. There are other ways, and big Ag isn't the only one. Sitting in the current solutions instead of looking to evolve them and learning from the past isn't how hypersanity works. And yes, hypersanity is probably the most extreme form of privilege. Also, the back-to-nature theme is great, not merely fine, and something indigenous cultures are trying to reclaim as a human birthright. The…
If it comes to 'hunt your own food' then no, 'living with nature' that will would starve billions. While Big Ag feeds them, in a fragile pipeline of varying yields and weather. Its 'privileged' to preach that nonsense to apartment-dwelling two-shift-working people with barely the time to visit the bodega on the way home. Its 'privileged' to imagine this approach to live could be for more than indigenous peoples (rapi…
Privilege is there to be shared. This includes privileged wisdom.
Indigenous cultures are dying out due to settlers and colonizers decimating their lands, cultures, and people. This is not news. It has nothing to do with their way of life, aside from not having developed appropriate weapons and immune systems from those who would seek to kill/displace them.
As for the global food problem, I personally hypothesize capitalism needs to fall or radically transform before that can be addressed.
Learning to peacefully and freely share food seems like the simplest way to address current food issues, but people's desire for money seems to get in the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s possible to encounter a concept and not emotionally “get it.” It’s one thing to hear about something on TV and another entirely to change your entire life. If it were “gotten” by the masses via Disney shows, we’d all stop chasing it at all. Social ties and bonds existed before money, achieved via other means. So yeah we don’t all “get it” in the same way. As someone with enough to retire on at 40, money feels pr…
>> As someone with enough to retire on at 40, money feels pretty pointless to me. Of course it feels pointless to you - you don’t _need_ any more of it. It feels pointless to me too, but my background wouldn’t allow me to live anywhere but on the street at my current age of 28 (without money, that is). I hope by 40 I will eventually earn enough to retire and be the same champagne socialist as you currently sound.
Living a life of service to others opens doors not available to those who sell themselves purely for personal gain.
Have you identified the fundamental needs for humans to thrive? You can google "universal needs" if not and then see if you can find ways to meet all your needs without money.
The perceived need for money goes down for those who learn alternative strategies for meeting their needs, are open to the possibilities, and trust themselves more than the world says to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't just you, the article reads almost exactly like something i'd have conjured up at 15 years old. It sounds to me like it is designed to massage the egos of disaffected under achievers to make them feel that they might be special; that the day to day humdrum is a result of a war against their special, now dampened, genius. In a world where the masses want to identify as mentally ill and where psychiatrists exp…
I wouldn't put this on the same level as an increase in mental illness cases in recent times. The scientists making those definitions know what they're doing. This article seems to just be... rambling, I guess?
It's hard to put into words because it's a very personal shift from society. Everyone I've met who is like this has got their own path, approaches life differently, and seems to have shed some unique subset of society, while still carrying some of humanity's codependent ways.
To me, rhe article seemed to be trying to introduce a new idea to the mainstream without a clear grasp on what the idea is. I imagine the author either isn't hypersane and/or doesn't have many collaborators looking at the subject.
For all that, the author does not provide a definition of hypersanity by which an individual may be judged to be or not be hypersane. His examples of hypersane individuals are questionable. Nelson Mandela ordered the torture and murder of political enemies and their families, including teenage children. Tenzin Gyatso is a deposed theocratic dictator whose subjects toiled under abject serfdom before his exile. Jane Go…
He didn't make the word. I you don't like it, maybe propose a different one to describe people who intentionally shed the teachings from society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually not so much any more. So-called third world countries have moved decisively in the first-world direction for a century. Of course there's still rationed health care and narrow food choices. But easily-treatable diseases? Starvation? More rare by the year.
And that's exactly my point. We are making actual progress, we are changing people's lives for the better, but if you live in the first world, you won't feel that, as most of the Big Issues of human life have already been solved. The first world is currently struggling with Big Issues that are a level above that, such as global warming, which the average person doesn't feel impact their life so directly. That is why…
I would also argue that specifically global warming is a direct consequence of technological progress and the industrialization of society. Human pollution would not be a problem is it weren't for materialism.
Technology provides comfort, as some expense. Either reliance on a central supply for food, water, electricity. Or in the form of pollution and exploitation of other humans.
In your opinion what is the ultimate value of colonizing mars for example?
edit: I am also from a "developing" country where the struggle is clearly visible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to think that a hyper-rational would opt out of society in general. Not relying on the conventional ways of sustenance that we are accustomed to. One example of this is the survivalist, that lives in nature. One could start incrementally moving towards minimalism, acquiring the training and skills to farm and hurt animals and finally step outside of organized society. This is something I have been thinki…
> To what extent is technological progress and economic growth truly useful? To me it is very useful and I truly believe that we live in the best possible time, even if you consider the people that have poorest lifestyle (and especially the number of people that are forced to live that lifestyle, which has decreased a lot). Maybe you will think otherwise? Possibly, but before you decide, please go and actually do it…
I do think we live in the most comfortable of times, but that gives me no satisfaction. The lack of satisfaction makes us dwell on mortality. I don't think I would care if I was killed during a hunt or contracted a virus after having lived a fulfilling life. So to what extent is technological progress and economic growth useful if I get no satisfaction from it?
This made me want to muddle around in the middle ground between rational and sane. Immediately at hand we have the 'human being' use case; when do we call humans 'rational' and when do we call them 'sane'?
Similarly we can ask what sorts of non-human things do we call sane and which do we call rational.
Rationality in humans appears to be quite temporal, while sanity moves much more slowly. A person can be rational one second and irrational the next, then 'get over it' thereby becoming rational again. Whereas generally we speak of sanity 'slowly slipping away'.
The outcomes generated also seem to have an effect on which words we use. When the outcomes behind events seem outsized relative to proceedings, we might call the whole thing 'insane'. Whereas 'irrational' seems to refer more to smaller-scoped outcomes, the operative aspect simply being that they're intransigent to ordinary reasoning.
As such, 'hypersane' seems to be a similar quality of sanity, and on a continuum you might put 'insane' at the far left, followed by 'irrational' then 'rational', then perhaps 'hyper-rational', followed by 'hypersane'.
What does this leave out? Could someone be hypersane and irrational at the same time? I don't think that's the intended understanding of the hypersane concept. In fact, I would venture a definition of hypersane to be someone whose 'irrationalities' are actually expressions of a more universal rationality. When Diogenes did seemingly irrational things, he was really picking up on broader social themes and dynamics and acting in ways that would confound and amaze rather than merely annoy and hinder. Diogenes' self-expressions might be more or less rational at any given time, but that he had a finger on the pulse of ancient Greek culture is undeniable, so he's eminently distinguishable from a 'mere' madman.
Whereas someone who is insane's irrational expressions are expressions of individual rationality, hopelessly entangled with the individual's own personal foibles.
So what is sanity, if rationalism captures the idea of 'self-expression being intelligible to others'? Even a madman is going to have prescient moments, perhaps they abound in them, as far from the mainstream they are. Perhaps it's the 'capacity of output' that makes up the difference. Terry A. Davis' life, may he rest in peace, was made infinitely better by his masters-level education and programming skills. They gave him a form of agency and ability to fascinate and participate in society that the guy in the red outfit that I pass by frequently on my way to and from work doesn't seem to have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To what extent is technological progress and economic growth truly useful? To me it is very useful and I truly believe that we live in the best possible time, even if you consider the people that have poorest lifestyle (and especially the number of people that are forced to live that lifestyle, which has decreased a lot). Maybe you will think otherwise? Possibly, but before you decide, please go and actually do it…
>I truly believe that we live in the best possible time This depends on your metric for "best", which I get the idea has something to do with comfort. I agree we live in the most comfortable times. Is comfort something worth seeking? If that is the case what drives people to push themselves to do uncomfortable things, i.e. run marathons, climb mountains, build structures, develop careers? I would argue it is the sens…
The satisfaction you are talking about is provided by a well-developed spiritual belief system and integrating spiritual truths and teachings, to a point where they get embedded deeply into your body, mind and soul, through a spiritual path, a way of developing the inner structures and deep qualities. This is process of spiritual growth. It is parrallel to the material developments, not directly connected to it.
It has likely been like this throughout the history of humanity. Some people have been more and some less successful on this path. But there are clearly defined ways to do this, teachings that will guide you through the process and quite reliably make you enlightened (or improve your life satisfaction enough so that you will stop midway, but satisfied with your progress). Some of these teachings have been working largely unchanged for thousands of years - precisely because they work! On top of that, for your pleasure there are some new recent systems and teachings which are rehashing the new information and packaging it into new forms of information and forms of spiritual practice which might perhaps be more effective than traditional ones (time will tell), but you are free to try that. On top of that you have the good old "find your own way" of getting spiritual growth by simply meditating nonstop for a really long time (years).
The way I see it, all of those scenarios are inexplicably better, easier and more effective now than ever. The access to information, to teachers, retreats etc is just phenomenal. This was never the case to such extent as it is today. So even here the recent material progress has made it easier for you to get your satisfaction, you simply have to look.
No society progress will do the work for the person, because each person has to do it themselves. Society (or a teaching/teacher/book/guide) can only help out and show the way.
If given all these possibilities, someone still does not follow through on any of the mentioned spiritual paths in order to get their satisfaction, given all these choices and help available - my question is do they really want it then? If not, they would just end up in the same place in any other time in history.