Taking a break from fiction, and contemplating

29/06/26 Final points of philosophical inquiry

utopia

Optimized machine or forgetful dream? In the first case, agents are not permitted to be wasteful; in the second case, there is no physical reality, and no negative consequences for poor decision-taking.

It is easy to imagine a utopia which “omits” violence; what of the utopia in which violence is the only source of satisfaction, success? The only language and the only inheritor, the only good? Is it somehow lesser? Why?

the dynamic of the genders

Man evolved from conquest. All men have inherited the behavioral and structural affinity for mass murder and mass rape. Woman evolved from sedentarism. They are the static geographical landmark of our species. They prevail by monopolizing speech, feminizing their own husbands and sons, in order to be conquered by stronger, healthier, foreign warriors. Women are a force for self-destruction in every civilization polluted by their presence. Yet, irregardless of initial conditions, even when dealing with some fanatical testosterone cult, they always find some way to seep into power, in ways that men find hard to control.

This dynamic is utterly dysfunctional. It is not helped by the modern expectation that equality of genders should be achieved by pretending to be blind to the untouched sphere of feminity, as the plunder of traditional male occupations is gutting all the energy away, unabated.

Men have specialized in making money, owning land, and the aforementioned violence - all of which stands out in the open, easily scrutinized, and taxed (violence apparently being taxed with time in prison). Women suffer none of this scrutiny; and when it comes time to split the money and the land, is it not crushingly obvious that it only results in half men and blind women?

the fortuitous encounter

How do you know what you want, if you have never been made aware of its existence? It would be as striving for red in a world of grey. Us, independent biological agents, possess the awareness of want.

Those who have no best friend, or romantic partner, or that have never been acquainted with a hobby they would enjoy, wish for such a situation to resolve through the acquisition of knowledge. This knowledge may be acquired in a semi-random perusing of available options; that which is unevoking is dismissed, and what stands-out becomes the default for what is “wanted” in that category of options.

The fortuitous encounter is not limited to what is wanted; the simplest example of it is, of course, two genetically compatible animals producing high quality offsprings together. A balancing example could be how most early childhood friends were instinctively driven to be friends with each other, sorting themselves out in teams by their own accord. And so, it is that agents themselves are not necessarily in control of what is meant by “fortune”, and this “fortune” is a relative term.

In a world evermore connected by social media, a world in which every individual is transformed into vapid popularity machines, it seems we do not meet whom we need to meet, but various disengaged adversaries for attention. Yet, presumably, the question shall stand for the future: how to connect together what belongs together, outside of random chance and tedious yet highly sensitive sorting?

the burden of the ever-widening consensus

One does not simply tiptoe around the fragile ego of a sensitive person: how are we supposed to engage in rational conversation between each other when we are expected to simultaneously manage the emotions of billions of idiots for themselves?

It is as if the system we are made to suffer under was specifically engineered to be trapped in a perpetual deadlock of bad priorities.

the charade

What is a book but not a book?