Some people may like to see themselves as having an illness because it conveys a certain level of suffering, and that it is not something they are choosing but rather something that happens to them. In this way some may find it is quite validating of the level of distress or confusion they at times experience.

In an individualistic society people who fail are often blamed for their failures, to be ill means you can seek some refuge from this blame. On the other hand, the other side to this exemption from blame is that the identity of being ill can lead people to feel helpless in the face of their emotional and social difficulties.



Old people, like those who live to be older than 30, didn’t exist in great numbers until about 30,000 years ago. Why is that? Anthropologist Rachel Caspari speculates that around that time, enough people were living long enough to function as a shared cultural hard drive for humans, a living…

According to Ethan Zuckerman:

The Internet promises a seemingly frictionless way of connecting individuals from around the globe. But in reality, that’s not what happens online: Instead, we clump together with people similar to ourselves, and have those affinities reinforced by tools that guide us to other people or products that resemble those we already know.

It’s not that I disagree with Zuckerman, but I wonder whether he’s considering that this isn’t just an online behavior, and thus may not be so easy to “fix”?

You know the people who never travel outside of their hometown? We do the same thing on the internet. We find or create a home, and are then loathe to move away from it. Of course people like familiarity. Doesn’t that make sense, biologically? And so, this whole “global citizen” thing is actually pretty difficult to do. There’s so damn much to know about, now. And besides that, stranger danger!

You can create fancy social media tools to connect people to others unfamiliar, but besides the members of our species who are already predisposed to be nomads, explorers, tryers of new things… it’s doubtful many others are going to be warm to it. And we have to consider that that’s a phenomenon that continues “from the ground up” — perhaps it’s even chemical or physical.

Immature people falling in love destroy each other’s freedom, create a bondage, make a prison. Mature persons in love help each other to be free; they help each other to destroy all sorts of bondages. And when love flows with freedom there is beauty. When love flows with dependence there is ugliness.

A mature person does not fall in love, he or she rises in love. Only immature people fall; they stumble and fall down in love. Somehow they were managing and standing. Now they cannot manage and they cannot stand. They were always ready to fall on the ground and to creep. They don’t have the backbone, the spine; they don’t have the integrity to stand alone.

A mature person has the integrity to stand alone. And when a mature person gives love, he or she gives without any strings attached to it. When two mature persons are in love, one of the great paradoxes of life happens, one of the most beautiful phenomena: they are together and yet tremendously alone. They are together so much that they are almost one. Two mature persons in love help each other to become more free. There is no politics involved, no diplomacy, no effort to dominate. Only freedom and love.
Osho (via electrichoney)

Biologists, Neuroscientists,

Hypothetically, what would you say to someone asking the “chicken or egg” question about neural chemistry: Does neurologocal/chemical/genetic information precede personality/responses/disposition or is it simply an expression of metaphysical “events”?

For example, those who believe in soul or karma and reincarnation, usually are more partial to the latter answer. For them, “chemistry” cannot possibly add up to the complex phenomenon they witness, therefore they accept the metaphysical answers more readily.

For a scientist, there may be other reasons to question “what came first,” but a metaphysical preference isn’t one of them. I wonder how valid the question is right now, for the scientific community.

It seems to me that we don’t yet know exactly how things add up to what we witness, and yet Evolutionary theory gives tells us that things were not even as organized as this, before. So the idea that there are some metaphysical absolutes that govern behavior seems a little silly, seeing how much behavior has changed over centuries and how much it differs between species (so long as we don’t take the anthropocentric stance, and do value the “morality”/experience/behavioral patterns of other species instead of casting that information aside and believing the “humans are special and endowed” paradigm.)

But back to it — how would you answer?

'You are not the same person you used to be, you have to admit. You’ve stuffed your brain with augmentations … When you grow the religious part of the temporal lobe, you can turn into a very different person, not to mention risking epilepsy. And that was only the start. Now you’ve got the animal stuff in there, you’ve got Pauline in there, recording everything you see—it is not insignificant. It can do damage. You end up being some kind of post-human thing. Or at least a different person.'

'Every thing I’ve done to myself I consider part of being a human being. I mean, who wouldn’t do it if they could? I would be ashamed not to! It isn’t being post human, it’s being fully human. It would be stupid not to do the good things when you can, it would be antihuman.'

2312, Kim Stanley Robinson
  • A: She likes Jane Austen?
  • B: She would.
  • A: I don't like those stories.
  • B: Stale
  • A: They don't reach beyond the species
  • B: They encourage recursive thinking
  • A: Mental patterns in the same loop
  • B: Man Woman Man Woman
  • ABAB: Not for me.
  • Instead, imagine living with the notion that you are little more than or as grand as dedicated memory. How funny.
  • C: Then, can't you reconfigure?
  • B: Says the AI. What do You know about living?
Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous.

Lenoardo da Vinci (via inthenoosphere)



And when Nature does lack, she simple eats the thing doing the lacking. Problem solved.

Love you Leo, but so pre-Darwin.