Author: Chris Shuttleworth

Self-Identification Modifying Being

On By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment
Originally Written: July 22nd 2020

There is a certain mood, a manner of being, an existential modification that takes place within the self’s conceptualization of itself. If we self-identify with a group identity, with a concept that denotes the existence we believe ourselves to be, we become modified in a manner that is in direct relation to the significance of the term, in a manner that necessarily follows from the sense that we give to the concept in our defining. By defining the nature of our own being as that of being a “philosopher”, “proletariat” (worker), as being a liberal or a conservative, we gear our existence into the groove that is defined by the sense that the word as idealized provides to us in our own understanding of it. Our understanding of language and its application to defining the nature of our being, i.e. who we are, is modified by the signification that the social milieu in which we find ourselves, historically, has created in defining the term and has so given its defining over to us. The way in which we understand the term “philosopher” or “conservative”, as deterministically intuited through our experience both introspectively contemplated and informed by externalities, is the way in which the term will modify us in its taking up as believed to be referencing our Being.

We take up the reference of our being to that which we associate it to, to that which we are able to understand it by. If we believe the defining conceptualizations of our being are those that contain a group identity, or of any description, we not only apply the cognitive label through making the judgment and forming an internal thought such as “I exist as a philosopher”, but we modify our embodied perspective and its correlative characteristics in relation to which we are certain of the description, and in a manner that is extracted from our understanding of the given description. We become geared into the world in a manner that puts on a lenses that is colored by the description of our identity, and our actions reflect this position. This description can be presented externally, can be judged by another in their evaluation of us, and we can take it up either by doxically accepting the description of others, or through our own intuitional connection, regardless, the taking up, the accepting, the gearing into the description, modifies our character and perspective in direct relation to the conceptualization that we take up.

The prevalent descriptions of characteristics of political groups as presented in the media, in our social interactions, the societal defining of psychological traits, the class separations and racial connotations which are thrust upon us by our perception of auditory signals, written, or intuited designations, form groups with significations that mean something, and are differentiated according to our introjecting the content that relates to them in our formulation of the word. The meanings of such terms become modified as pushed upon us by the environment in which we find ourselves in.

Our lenses through which we take up our being in the world, and the subjective experience of consciousness which results from this filtration, is constituted by the color of the lenses which we use in our depiction of ourselves. While the initial filter is the pre-conscious perspectival taking up and revealing, in a bottom up fashion, the top down integration of conscious direction can cause a perspectival modification, thus what we consciously value is designated by our embodied perspective, yet simultaneously informed by consciously formulated ideals. One such conscious formulation is the change in values as modified by conscious self-reflection, and the manner in which we tend to do so happens to be linguistically, or conceptually, using language. This language which we use to describe our own Being, orients us towards the world in a manner that coincides with the way in which we understand ourselves, and this is where behavior can change in relation to the values underlining our understanding of self-constructed definitions in reference to our own Being.

We don’t only conceptualize ourselves as we are, but also as we wish to be, what we wish to be is due in the first instance to our biologically instantiated value system, and subsequently modified by the environmental and social milieu to which the value system is modified throughout the historicity of our existence. Our historicity, insofar as it is temporal, builds upon the first order biological filtration of our perceptive system (Value System Instantiation), in a progressive manner. As more present moments don their contributions towards effecting the totality of our being (over time), the value system is modified in accordance with that which is determined to follow the cultural environment as mediated and understood through the biological organism’s perspective. Thus, we develop our facticity, that which constitutes the fact of our Being in the present moment, and we find within us a certain orientation towards the world that is directly influenced by the value structure that has so been developed, desiring this or that, pursuing this or that, behaving in accordance with this or that, and wanting to be this or that. This desire towards embodying or actualizing a certain description, can lead to self-connotations that one believes to be an accurate depiction of oneself, which is in alignment with one’s value system. We only believe what we believe, and this changes due to cultural norms, our environment, that which we are educated and that which impresses itself on us as being most valuable.

Ignorance of far ranging perspectives by the narrow indoctrination towards a specific ideology might not be seen by the naïve consciousness which knows of no other existence, but unbeknownst to it the very core of ones Being is permeated by said ideology and one’s entire existence becomes characterized by a critical permeation of the idea. Every action, thought, or word spoken is an expression of the totality of the Being which we are, and if this being is characterized by a narrow ideology, you can be sure the person will live out this ideology across the span of his existence. The label which is supported by the ideology gears us into living in accordance with it. The prevalence of societal norms, of societally supported descriptions which one believes that embodying would better support oneself in navigating life, dominate the psyche as a driving factor to actualize in oneself, and can lead to the behavior modifications which go along with applying such descriptions to one’s own being. How I came to desire to be a philosopher, how I came to refrain from applying political labels to myself, is instantiated upon the nature of my being in a causally determined way that is no different than the ideologically possessed, I am, as well, ideologically possessed by the idea that this description of my being is not only accurate, but the best I have found so far. The objective status of our primary identification in relation to other descriptions depends upon the nature of the judgment we place upon descriptions as being “better” or “worse”, our morality, and what we see to be the “good” will inform which values come on top, in terms of what we spend time in association with, as well as in how we identify. Being that this judgment of our current self-description and its contents are all instantiated in a manner that is beyond our control, and have been the product of a historicity towards the development of actualizing our being to believe of itself to be so constituted in the present moment, is likewise out of our control, in the same manner as any other ideological possession we can point to.

The description we apply to ourselves orients us in a way that modifies our social interaction, and how we behave towards others, not only in the manner in which we present ourselves, but in the manner in which we wish the other to perceive of us, itself modifying our behavior to be in accordance with the desired instantiation of the mind of the other in their perception. This manner of being-towards-others, conversely, will affect the manner in which others treat us, and how their being becomes oriented in the space of which is perceptibly shared by ourselves and them, as we meet in the world and occupy the same practical milieu which can be affected by both of us. Thus, the manner in which we describe ourselves, does more than mediate the content of our subjective experience by modifying actions and behavior in accordance with it, but it has an effect on our being-towards-others, their being-towards-us, and the content that stems from such interactions.

Every moment in our life is a manifestation of the totality of our being, in one way or another, we are always authentically representing ourselves by any action, behavior, thought, emotion, mood, mode of being, or perception that takes place. To him who is dishonest, or attempting to put on a deceptive act that paints his character other than it would otherwise be, that too is reflective of the person’s Being, if such knowledge is ever truly revealed. In seeking to better orient ourselves to the world in which we find ourselves, we are constantly seeking the mode of being which is best suited for the environment that surrounds us, the people we come into contact with, the thoughts that manifest themselves, in short, our Being is seeking optimization of itself, towards the management of the set of all moments. Obviously, the best solution is to seek to better oneself in handling the set of all problems, rather than individual problems, but both can be mutually improved upon through the development of the other. The way in which we do so, the best life we can live, the method of gearing ourselves into the world, and the role that conscious self-conceptualization plays in modifying such areas of our most profound longing, becomes extraordinarily significant to us, insofar as the content of our subjective experience is modified by it. Since the content of our subjective experience is of integral importance to us, and poses a significance that is valuable regardless of ideological possession, we ought to consciously direct ourselves towards those descriptions which modify our being towards producing the greatest amount of wellbeing, subjectively, the most amount of time possible.

This isn’t a merely selfish endeavor at the peril of all others, although it can be. If it appears best to us to identify and behave as a tyrant and deceiver, for whatever reason, one will experience the subjective experience that alignment with such an ideal provides. One in such a position may fail to see the benefit in acting otherwise, and will never know what they are missing, and to those in such a position, they will meet with unending misfortune, and, most likely, an extremely dissatisfied experience of life. We will no longer be treated with love and respect, will probably find ourselves hated, distrusted, imprisoned or injured as a consequence. This negative experience may be the catalyst to change, or may not be. But, if given the opportunity to experience what acting in a manner that doesn’t reflect that identity can provide, it may sway the person’s judgment of such identification, and lead to meaningful change to a different identity.

We can mitigate the dangers in identification, as well as exploit the usage. By limiting ourselves to a single political position, we alienate ourselves from other perspectives, and close off ourselves to seeing the entirety of the picture. By defining ourselves by our job, or our current role in our lives, we face an identity crisis should our position change. If we identify with character traits that we value, such as having a strong mind, being disciplined in contact, as being a person who is able to be virtuous, we identify with a description that is not only valued and thus desired, but we become able to better modify our character to represent the identity that we desire. By identification with discipline, we become more urged to remain faithful to exercise, diet, and hard work. By identifying as a loving friend, rather than, say, “John’s friend” we become better suited to care for friends as they come and go out of our lives. By identifying as a strong leader, rather than “the supervisor of a certain company”, we don’t lose our identity should the company fail, and we become able to embody leadership principles across the board in our lives.

 Our being in the world must take into account the social milieu in which we find ourselves, as we are social beings which place a significant amount of importance upon our relations with others, and our behavior must reflect that internal disposition, which can be modified by the self-conceptualizations as described above. So a merely selfish mode of being that is the production of self-aggrandizement in self-depiction is clearly not the answer, if one is wise, and has a grasp upon one’s true value system, they will take into account the many factors towards which our wellbeing and environment are conditioned by. We must take into account society, family, friends, that which we value, that arena of experience which is closest to ourselves, not merely that which is conscious experience itself, but also its mediating factors that can be altered based upon our behavior, in their reflective affecting of our subjective experience.

Philosophic Interpretational Structures

On By Chris Shuttleworth3 Comments
Originally Written: July 22nd 2020

In the spirit of going against the common narrative, of remaining open-minded, and analyzing the optimal mode of being from which to operate within to effectively orient ourselves against the set of all problems, it is important to analyze and seek to optimize the philosophical structure which we adhere to. If we value a meaningful existence, we ought to strive for the optimal interpretive lenses from which we use to comprehend the problem of our Being, from which we extract the manifestations of our actions and thoughts in order to properly navigate the world. We naturally seem inclined to do so, whether consciously contemplated or otherwise. We “seek” to understand and orient ourselves to the best of our abilities and for the philosopher such a process becomes explicit, and can be acutely recognized as such.

The philosophical structures that we “create” through experience are more or less optimal to the success or failure of our specific goals. Some structures of thought and interpretation may provide us with the groundwork to a more optimal conscious subjective experience, to which I attribute, among other spiritual and philosophical frameworks, the Buddhist doctrinal contemplation and immersion. A certain modification of our Being in our subjective experience, content of thought, and wellbeing associated with our psychic life, our actions and orientation, all become influenced in direct relation to the school of thought, religious contemplation, or area of inquiry that we immerse ourselves in, and pick up. That which we are engaged in influences the mode of being from which our experience springs forth. While ideological structures like Buddhism show to me a change in subjective wellbeing stemming from its modification of Being to one of pointed wisdom, aversion to unwholesome desires, confidence in discipline, and concentration on the content of experience in the present moment, it also performs a less than optimal modification in terms of social cohesion, productivity in goal-accomplishment, and diligent striving to pursue familial and societal goals, which, while they may not accurately represent our values, they ought to be pursued for their utility and long term significance to the quality of our lives. Although the Buddhist mindset provides for me a subjective equanimity, it fails to provide the thought that is optimal for the comprehension of reality as it is in itself to an adequate manner, such as philosophical schools such as phenomenology succeed to a greater extent, or the scientific deterministic mindset can provide. Yet the undertaking of one, the embodying and actualizing of content stemming from either source, necessarily implies an opportunity cost of the benefit of the other. This isn’t strictly speaking the divide between empiricism and intellectualism, materialism and idealism, it isn’t strictly confined to a primarily Buddhist mode of interpretation of phenomena and the phenomenological interpretation, it applies to every mode of being that can be pointed to as having an intentionality founded upon a philosophical structure. The modification of our being in response to specific framework or structure that we adhere to, play a crucial role in affecting the content of our experience.

It becomes clear that in our journey through life we ought to pursue that mode of being which is best able to navigate the set of all problems in existence. For different periods of life, for different situations, for different environments, in relation to different people, and times, we ought to conclude that there are better or worse structures to embody in order to manage the situation we find ourselves thrown into. This poses a problem for the philosopher, and for the contemplative who takes an interest in his own experience, as to which mode to embody, if one is to consciously direct oneself towards one, which one, if any?

Individual ideologies in a single structure prove useful and optimal for different things in direct relation to the significance and modification of that structure. But no single ideology is encompassing enough to subsume the beneficiality in regards to every facet of life. While Christianity may benefit the community through strong family and interpersonal struggles, it fails on the intellectual level, and even more so on influencing scientific discoveries. Every ideology is lacking in regard to certain situations, and all previously established schools of thought share in their deficiency to properly inform the nuances of all of life’s challenges and situational encounters. As society changes, as our lives change, as horizons broaden, so should our interpretation and framework from which to operate from. This requires a strict separation between our self-image, our belief structure, from that of dogmatic ideological possession. In the current political climate, with the expanding polarization between conservative and liberal parties, we become blinded to the argument, benefit, and utility of the opposite party’s viewpoint. In order to properly inform a correct interpretation of any political issue we must see the other sides views, in their positive and negative points toward any singular issue, or fail to gain deeper insight into the complexity of the issue at hand. The mere dogmatic adherence to one side of the political spectrum delimits our view into a merely “part of the story” comprehension, when the whole story is much vaster, thus the fundamental disagreement. There are good reasons why half the country bends strongly one way and the other in contrary ways, one side isn’t merely intelligent and the other ignorant, the thesis and its contrary thesis both hold weight, for good reason. It is in a transcendent viewpoint that realizes the intentionality behind each, the reason for the disagreement, the benefits and drawbacks, that can come to a satisfying synthesis which encompasses both views, and from that place of transcendence can work towards the unity and cohesion between different personalities, perspectives, and lifestyles towards and optimal government with policies that are inclusive rather than divisive. The more we close off our minds, the more we maintain in a mode of being certain, or are possessed by a singular structure, the less we are to gleam the whole picture, gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic, and thus are less informed as to an optimal stance on the issue and its resolution. This extends past the political sphere, to all realms of inquiry. The mode of being certain, of working within a singular rigid structure, hinders growth, hinders understanding, and limits the potential solutions and manifestation of actions to solely those provided by that structures interpretation. The more we become marked be a fallible mode of being, of opening up our belief structure to contain doubt, to be more inclusive to the unknown, the more options and potential solutions to problems become available to us. The more potential solutions, dependent on the more knowledge, the more equipped we become at countering dogmatic adherence and actualizing the potentiality that is more optimally suited to what we authentically, individually, believe to be most viable.

The more knowledge we have into the optimality of different modes of being in relation to situational consistencies supplies us with a bigger pool of options from which to choose from in the face of novel encounters. This, on its face, must be true. The more experience we have, the more knowledge, the more options and pathways available to us. The increase of knowledge, increases the availability of given solutions. The problem is oftentimes these pathways are dead ends, and we lose time in their development, but, if charted correctly, the pursuance of certain knowledge, in certain directions, can be utilized in the present moment for their beneficiality towards novel situations. How these are selected for, how we can instantiate them, and the best way to do so, is complex, and would require a theoretically infinite discourse in expression.

I always assumed my progression towards an optimal mode of being was linear, and improved as knowledge and experience improved, but this may be a false notion. The worry here is that what was once attained may no longer be available upon the acquisition of further knowledge. What is “best”, what is “better”, and the relationship modes of being have to the current situation which we find ourselves in, are all transient, and constantly fluctuating, not to mention our experience rooted in them becomes altered as well. Ought we to give up our search then? If our knowledge has provided us with experience that points to structures that are mutually incompatible, yet individually useful, how ought we to decide upon the direction to travel?

The aim in discovering the best life to live, necessarily requires the philosophical extrapolation of possible experiences, possible modes of being in relation to that “best life”, an explanation of morality, intentionality, and a thorough analysis of our goals. The implications of such a search become vaster the more we learn in any of these given domains, as always, we wish not to regress, we wish to progress, substantially, day by day, towards better and better ways of being. Is this feasible? Is it possible? We wish for it to be true, and we tell ourselves that every day we are getting better and better, understanding ourselves and the world we are thrown into more and more, that our mode of being is being improved, that we can better navigate the world today than yesterday, as experience opens up new horizons, as more situations and possible solutions are uncovered, we assume we are better oriented to deal with them. Are these assumptions true? They mustn’t always be, and we must remain open to the possibility that we have lost something which would be more valuable to us than we currently contain. The knowledge of lost knowledge itself is unreliable, it is merely a second order abstraction upon a memory that is no longer present for us. The narrative we tell ourselves in the present about the state of affairs in the past is merely an attempt in the present of recreating a moment gone to us, based upon the present state of things. It never can accurately capture the past, it is lost to us, and each attempt at recreating it, whether it is imagined and conceptualized in thought or articulated in speech, is merely at the most a second order representation. When we attempt to reconstitute the state of affairs in the past, we are merely doing so by building upon the order of re-articulation that we last devised, we are extrapolating upon an abstract extrapolation, and becoming further removed from the content. The narration is constantly modified as time passes, whether or not articulability increases or decreases, whether or not our comprehension of reality in the present moment becomes more or less deviated from the truth of the matter, does not matter, the narration is modified by experience, experience is entwined with time, and our re-articulability is modified by our past articulation of content.

The past is simultaneously lost to us forever, and inexhaustibly entwined with the present, as the future is as well. The future is forever nonexistent, yet always what our being is oriented towards, we live in front of ourselves, our experience is projected towards the future, in the present, as it is constituted by the past. The present we experience is merely the attempt to orient ourselves towards the future that is nonexistent, founded upon a past that is lost to us, and we find ourselves thrown into it by no choice of our own.

In regards to past modes of being, insofar as we recollect them as being more optimal towards achieving a beneficial mode of being, we ought not dwell in the relinquishment of a treasure that cannot be reclaimed, but rather, we must strive on, as it is the only option available to us. Strictly speaking, the philosophical structure which we seek to be the most optimal towards our present moment embodiment is impossible to articulate, but not impossible to strive towards developing, and in doing so, make progress. Practically speaking, we find better or worse ways of navigating. If Buddhism worked in the past as an interlocutor in mediating our conscious thoughts and interpretation of the world, yet we have so altered our being towards Christianity, and Buddhism is no longer the present mode of interpretation towards which we see the world, all is not lost. If we find our new mode characterized by Christianity, and reflect upon the good ol’ days of Buddhism when subjective experience was optimal, and find ourselves wanting, we are merely telling ourselves something that cannot be truly representative of the situation we find ourselves in. We are merely judging our present using thought in a manner that is inconclusive to the beneficiality of what we ought to do.

Properly speaking, we only transcend our past mode of being for one which we deem to be better suited to ourselves. Whether this is true in actuality or not, our change in structure is due to a perceived benefit, and it cannot be otherwise. Our beliefs about the world, and the manner in which we orient ourselves towards the world, works in full accordance with our perceptible ability to uncover valuable information, which is presented to consciousness. If we value something more than the other, if we move in any direction, it necessarily becomes that which we believe the acquisition of to be better constituting our current mode of being. We cannot believe something we do not believe, and we cannot act otherwise. Every moment, every thought, every philosophical structure uncovered in the present moment, is a representation, albeit in part (always in part!) of the Totality of our being. Every expression stemming from conscious direction, is an expression that denotes a significance towards the Being which we are. We cannot act consciously in a way that doesn’t represent our consciousness.

In short, we should be wary to conclude upon strict adherence to a single philosophical structure, as its breadth is less than optimal to cover the totality of novel situations, within a fluctuating milieu of interpersonal relations and individual development progression. As our lives and minds develop, as situations and potentialities become open up to us, the more versatile we must become in consequence, or suffer the price that an outdated mode of being carries with it. As we become more competent and capable, both in our abstract belief structure, and practical knowledge, our orientation naturally changes in the way we are embodied in confronting the world we find ourselves in. For the mind to lag behind the constant reorientation, is to fail to meet up with the challenges of the present moment using the tools we have available. In utilizing our rational capacities, and the ability to remain fallible as to conclusive structures which guide us, the better equipped we become to face the present moments unique difficulties. In relinquishing adherence to certainty, we open ourselves up to an authentic being-towards-the-world, one which best represents who we are, who we want to be, and is better suited to adapt to the environment we find ourselves in. We ought to be prudent in discerning the structures we are studying, their affect upon our psychological wellbeing, and their role in modifying behavior. As we collect more data in more domains, we ought to reevaluate what labels we attach to ourselves, and the repercussions that stem from such characterizations. The way in which we self-conceptualize ourselves (Self-Conceptualization Modifying Behavior), and the mode of being which is influenced by our pointed interests and time spent concentrating on a specific school of thought, must be recognized as to its influence in regards to the subjective experience of the present moment, and we ought to progressively move forward towards optimizing the framework from which our mode of being is propagated by, and which courses through every experience of our lives, that is, if we value our experience, which, undeniably, we do. The role of philosophy is to make this inquiry, uncovering, and direction optimal in its utility and in our understanding and conceptualization of it, with ends towards a more meaningful, fulfilling, eudaimonistic life.

Existential Ramblings and Conclusions

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: July 20th 2020

The problem is that we have an experience, and that experience can be better or worse. Not to mention, that experience and its contents, which are ranging, are wholly contingent upon this world in which we find ourselves thrown into.

The question no longer becomes whether anything matters or doesn’t, as it surely does, to us, it becomes – how do we best navigate this existence we find ourselves thrown into? The social milieu, the time, the space, the experience, the present moments causal tethers, and the anticipation of the future, how do we navigate with the givens?

Do we stop trying, and produce an intolerable suffering that we subjectively experience? Do we struggle to pursue what we individually uncover as valuing, despite the universes judgment upon the futility of meaning? We ought to. We ought to rebel against the universes condemnation, and bring to the forefront that meaning which we find gives sense to our experience, that which relates to our conscious awareness the beneficiality of pursuing, not because it means something to the world, but because it means something to us. Is this real? Does it exist? It exists as sure as our experience of existence exists, and to optimize this experience is to pursue what we value, which, if we’re smart, we would look to discovering what is the most optimal pursuits to value themselves.

We don’t forget our thrownness into a world unasked for, we don’t ignore the universal insignificance of our existence, rather, we value the content of our own experience, we see the sense that is made behind every moment, as our embodied perceptive ability discerns which content to manifest in conscious experience, and in so inviting, we discern modes of being, we experience life, we live and we learn, we strive for optimal states, and we ought not feel guilty, nor forget the framework from which we work in.

Our natural orientation toward the world will inform us of our values, whether they be pre-conscious in perception, or consciously directed. Our genetic encoding for how to perceive, and the way in which we orient ourselves towards our environment is done so by a certain signification that objects in our environment give as mediated by the perceptive system (itself genetically and environmentally informed). This is base level sense, meaning, and signification. It also just so happens to be the case that we are located in a social milieu, a familial and culturally influenced system, which is formulated into our perceptive orientation system since birth. These systems all seek to orient us in a way that has value, from the basis of survival, propagation, and other evolutionary factors. This basis, provided with a social milieu, entails action and Being that works in a way towards properly being in the world. This “proper” is somewhat anthropomorphized, but it is a natural process that is underlined by a certain sense.

There is sufficient reason why we pay attention to certain things, why certain content has the effect it does upon us, why we reciprocally act in a way that is “intuited” as optimal for us. It is a production of a value system, that is part in parcel of our Being, that which we are, and our place in the world we find ourselves in.

We can extrapolate, as the desires and goals become enriched by the societal norms, become more complex as the means to survival and satisfaction become more entwined and enriched with a causally determined value. We pursue things, we say things, we do things, we think things, and we reflect on our own experience, not for no reason at all, but for good reason, it is all bursting with meaning, we ought to attempt to uncover such things, which we can (Value System Uncovering). Proper Vipassana meditation, analyzed with a phenomenological method, can disclose the intentionality behind conscious experience, can disclose the modes of being which we embody, and their characteristics (Phenomenology of Vipassana Mode of Being). One of which, as Hiedegger pointed out, is our natural care or concern system, which courses through every present moment.

Everything we do is fundamentally informed by our care and concern, our want, our deficiency and its alleviation. We care about things, we value things, because they mean something to us, there is no escaping this, whether we consciously attribute our belief structure to being nihilist, or absurdist, etc., the orientation towards a belief structure, and mediated by the belief structure, itself is rooted upon a type of meaning, albeit the selection of negation over affirmation (in these cases).

Why do you think you better yourself? We should answer these questions for ourselves, look to who we want to be, what we want to do, and strive to go there, for good reasons and intentions. Making this goal, these intentions, and the path there explicit provides a benefit towards achieving that goal of becoming who we want to become, of getting “better” in a subjective sense – made objective only in its relation to our subjective experience of being better or worse.

Why do we continue living? Why do I do the things I do? I do it because it fills me with meaning, provides positive states of being, it will make me a better husband, father, citizen, which themselves are sources of meaning, they provide a framework from which to act under that improves my psychological state, it fills my life with potentialities that have a significance to me, and for me, that is enough to continue living.

The better we are, in ways which we value, hypothetically (if our goals, intentions, practice, and definition of “better” is actually conducive to a better experience of life) the better we can navigate existence, the better we can cope with hardship, the better subjective experience we have, and the better we can aide others. By bettering ourselves, we become more equipped to handle life itself, optimally, that produces wellbeing for ourselves and those we care about.

The more virtuous we are, the better we can act, the more knowledgeable we become, the better we are able to understand reality, and the better equipped we become to live in an optimal manner.

While this is itself subjective, I think we ought to pursue what we value regardless, at the least on a “whim” as Camus said, but we can go past that, because this “whim” can be properly informed and backed by empirical evidence of improving psychological wellbeing, which ought to matter to us, seeing as our experience does matter to us. We can instantiate a path towards a consciously formulated goal, mode of being, character trait, personal accomplishment, creative act, etc. that is the result of a pursuance in accordance with what we find meaningful in the present moment, or what we value.

Now why ought we to pursue what we value, what we consciously formulate as being valuable? This is generally a tautology, we pursue what is valuable because it is valuable, it provides us with wellbeing, reduces suffering, creates a life that is meaningful, to us, by definition, because it’s based on our values.

This would be, if you could grant me, a subjective pursual that is objectively verified as a real present moment decision, act, understanding. The phenomena of such conscious decisions, the awareness necessary to realize, is all subjective, but we can say, from our experience, if is an objective fact about our existence that it is occurring.

I would never make a claim that pursuits and values are universally shared to the same degree, just that they objectively exist and can be discovered subjectively. Any further extrapolation would require quite a detailed phenomenological explanation as well as a philosophically vigorous explanation of what “truth” here entails. (On Truth Claims) I hope you see where I’m coming from regardless.

One more point on the is ought problem, as far as morality is concerned, I’m coming from a meta ethical perspective of moral realism, tempered by individually acquired wisdom in actuality, so there’s that.

In regards to extrapolating these musing beyond the life of a human, to other sentient life, the natural orientation we have towards the world we’re in, this goes for Dasein, and dog, and buffalo, is naturally oriented towards the content within its environment, pre-consciously. This orientation is grounded upon the biological structure of our system, formed through DNA, developed through our historical development by environmental factors. The dog isn’t aware of the being of the object which imposes a reaction, the dog is merely orienting himself to the environment he perceives in embodied pre conscious adjustments. The perception of the hot ground in Arizona, and the subsequent movement of the lizard in response, isn’t merely an empirical sensory intake and thus movement, neither is it the intellectual comprehension and directedness of the mind imposing direction and movement, it is the embodied perceptibility of his being which is seeking to reorient that being based on the conditions of the world in which he finds himself, the milieu which surrounds him.

I would say the orientation of the being of the organism to color and heat is intuited by its perceptive abilities prior to cognize, that being said, where anthropomorphized cognition and intellect must be suspended, such as in another organism such as a lizard, we cannot claim that it recognizes the being of such phenomena as such. We only claim the being of the object being perceived in consciousnesses as being a possibility due to our own recognition of our being, I think it would be fallacious to attribute the same power, to the same degree, to other beings – but this also holds true to members of the same species.

That being said, from our perspective, using our language, we can say that the organism does intuit heat and color, that they recognize the fluctuation, variance, and thus orient themselves accordingly, but this content is never made explicit to itself in a way which humans are capable of doing so.

So the organism does have a comprehension of the color and heat of the sand which it darts across, and thus is impelled to action through movement, but that comprehension which we say is the comprehension of the being of externalities, isn’t the same comprehension which we are used to. Our comprehension is mediated and filtered through our perceptive abilities, and the mode of comprehension which is enacted upon by the lizard isn’t making the content of his environment explicit, or attributing it to the being of externalities, he is merely reorienting in much the same way we do with a hot stove, or when someone walks into the room.

Every being, in relationship to any other being which enters into our perceptual or even conceptual horizon, modifies the being which is present in response to its recognition (not conscious recognition, merely perceptive.) The manner in which we do so, the characteristics of such modes of being, how phenomena influence us, and how we come to perceive, comprehend, and are modified by such phenomena, is the role of the phenomenologist to attempt to uncover.

The manner in which organisms which are farther away from us do so, i.e. not Dasien, becomes less clear and more difficult their degree of removal of sameness they are from us, as we all know, even denoting our own fundamental characteristics in regards to any given phenomena, noema, and the underlying noesis, is difficult enough.

What stands, regardless of the being which is in question, is that if it is life, it has a set of values, instantiated at birth towards certain aims. These aims, whether conscious, unconscious, or merely perceptual and reactionary, inform the being of the organism in question as to how to orient itself in life. Whether to produce locomotion, cognition, action, or inaction. This evaluation of our environment, our modification in response to the gulf between ourselves and the environment, urges us in directions, towards objects of intentionality. This all is presupposed by a significance, a meaning, an evaluation, which, if uncovered, can provide insight into why we do the things we do. This system isn’t merely bottom-up, but can be effected significantly in a top-down manner as well, which is where the absurdist or existentialist conceptions come in play. As long as our subjective experience matters to us, we ought to pursue that which we value, re-examine our value system, and direct ourselves towards actualization of that content – that is – if we want a meaningful life, if we want to have a positive psychological experience. While none of this matters sub species aeternitus, from the universes perspective, or from any perspective outside our own, the fact remains that it matters to us, and that is more than enough to pursue what we value.

The Problem of Being

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: July 6th 2020

A potential state of human inquiry is into the nature of our very being, and what it means “to be”. For many of us, if not all of us, this very being which we subjectively experience, the totality of who we are, that conscious experience of being a subject, that conscious experience of content as it arises and passes away, the totality of our psyche, our body, the unity of time, space, and consciousness, all of which falls under our synthesis of the unity of the Being which we are, becomes itself a problem, insofar as we don’t understand it, nor know how to modify it to the most optimal subjective experience. Our being becomes a problem for us, because we are able to recognize, first of all, that we are something. This something, insofar as it is unknown, unconceptualized, yet experienced, is altogether unknown to us. While our Being is that from which any action or content of the present moment is able to be brought into our awareness, we find trouble pinning down its process. Why am I experiencing one thing and not another? Why does my experience have a mood of dissatisfaction and suffering? How do I optimize this being, and why is it not the way I want it to be? Even if it was optimal, or is currently producing a mode of being which is content, or at peace, we know it won’t last, it is of the nature of our Being to be transient, alterable, subject to change.

 Given our desirous, transmutable, and altogether unreliable Being which is the very thing that we are, it is the source of our experience, and in the recognition of that experience, it becomes a problem for us, insofar as our experience is always lacking. Given the nature of our Being, that it is conditioned by prior causes, that it is always projecting itself into the future through the will for things to be otherwise, given the dissatisfaction and desire which are ceaseless, this Being becomes a problem for us. How can who we are, pose itself to be a problem? How could it be otherwise? If it couldn’t be otherwise, why do we still see it as a problem?

It is a problem by its very nature. Being biological organisms, in our corporeality, we are the literal survival machines of our genome, the very carrier that is tasked with propagation. This is the lowest core value that drives us, and as far as our Being is comprised of this body, which it is, the relative biological imperatives rise into our conscious experience, a manifestation of a mode stemming from the synthetic unity of Being, in whichever way they may be modified by our milieu, with the original desirous implications which are an expression of that core value. The complexity of our current milieu in which expression of the genomes wishes to be accomplished, and our ability to be acutely aware of the navigation of the milieu, and our place in it, gives rise to the complexity that arises in conscious awareness. Thus, based solely on the core value, we have a complex navigation issue that is further complicated by the more and more complex social environment and cultural conditions which we must orient ourselves around in order to succeed in accomplishing the survival machines task. This is the world “we”, as the subjective experiencers of this navigation, are “thrown into”. We experience the orientation provided to us by our embodied Being, that is modified by everything within our sphere of experience and influence. This constant modification, and our constant inherent desire, provides a large number of factors and potential orientations towards the world which we may find ourselves inhabiting. The problem with our Being is the dissatisfaction in not being properly equipped for the world we didn’t choose to be a part of, in inhabiting a body with a mode of Being that is sub-optimal in providing pleasure and contentment, as its instantiated final cause is that which necessarily must be driven towards. Our experience poses a navigation problem, that of seeking for the proper orientation, seeking the proper way of Being in the world we are thrown into. The problem is, it is never clear, it is never straightforward, we are always pushed and pulled, attracted to and aversive to the content which arises in our perceptually integrated directedness which presents itself in conscious awareness.

The directedness which comprises the gaze of consciousness towards perceptually filtrated content that is filled with a sense, a significance, a meaning, presents novel problems (novel in that every present moment is novel, always renewing itself) in how to orientate ourselves with the given content selected for. This continually updated system, itself continually updating, and our conscious experience “updating” in that it is mutable and constantly fluctuating, overwhelms the Being which believes it has the power, or the right, or the ability, to dictate the successive content, and our orientation towards it. While consciously directed Being is able to manifest actions in alignment with desire, those very desires, and the very perceptual system which injects content into conscious awareness, is itself outside of our will (The Causal Tethers Which Bind Us). As we are filled with choices, and “decisions” in regards to the choices, the entire enterprise is ran through by processes which go unnoticed in an unreflexive moment-to-moment experience. This dragging along into a world we are thrown into, for him who recognizes it as such, poses a problem, a problem of fatalism, that of being along for a ride which we didn’t choose to take, that we can’t stop, and we have no say over where it goes.

Prior to any realization of the characteristics which compromise our being such as its necessary meaning structure, its directedness, its inherent desire and dissatisfaction with the present, its projection towards the future and its immutable connectivity to the past, comes the preliminary underlying issue of our own Being being unknown to us, of Being something which we do not know. While these characteristics seek to impose some order in conceptual form, or experientially realized pre-conceptual form, they are merely a way of our Being coming to terms with what it is. Any unknown which we are directed upon poses a sort of issue for us, a problem, insofar as it has yet to be put in formation, yet to be transferred from mere content to “information”. This presents itself in any content that manifests itself in a novel, or wholly unintuitable way, it invites us to seek a way of categorizing it, of putting ourselves in orientation towards it in a way that makes sense of it, that has meaning. While this is done subconsciously with visual, auditory, tactile, and in general, all sensorious content, the mental content that arises poses the same exact issue, but it requires an orientation that is more than just perceptually integrated and embodied – as it itself is the production of the perceptual filtration system – it requires an abstract orientation of the mind in being able to make sense of the content. We often attempt to impose order upon mental content through the linguistically developed capabilities we contain. We tie concepts to phenomena and use language in order to reference it, placing a structure of understanding within ourselves in relation to the content that is manifesting. When it comes to the unknown that is itself this very Being which is orientating itself in the world, we find the same problem, but amplified in its scope, in that it is the Being which orients which seeks to orient itself. We, being the totality of the system which does the orientating, experience the awareness of conscious content in its directedness towards something, and can reflexively conclude that it is the manifestation of conditioned phenomenal forces acting in the presenting of the present. In seeking to uncover the attributes, the mode of being which comprises the enterprise is itself directed towards that which is directing, towards the directionality itself.

This Being poses a problem in that it is unknown, and in seeking to order it, to tie linguistic representations and structure ourselves towards it, the very mechanism from which we are doing so is that which we are attempting to reflexively orientate ourselves towards. Thus we prose a problem for ourselves, in that we seek to uncover a way of organizing the chaos which we are, through the chaos that is that which is to be understood. Thus the fundamental human condition, that of operating from a presupposition of chaotic potentiality, the unknown that is known by the conscious observer as being unknown, and which fails to impose order upon it.

Thus the role of phenomenology arises from this deficiency, as that which takes this issue of Being, attempts to impose order in the formulation and comprehension of its characteristics, through the recognition of its manifestations, through the examination of its content and the ties which predispose our Being to act and Be in certain ways. It is recognizing the characteristics of this Being which we find ourselves as, that we are reflexively turning the gaze upon itself, and delineating its features. This Being which we are, is the necessary precondition to any enterprise that arises into experience, whether it is movement, sensation, mental aggregates such as thought, ideas, pre-conceptual experience, and, the way in which we are situated in the world, and what we do in the world. All human endeavor, whether it be scientific, technological, social, or philosophical, stems from the human Being which is a mystery unto itself. Yet we make truth-claims about these domains, we impose order in the form of descriptions of objects, and we know not from whence the description came, we know not why and how such manifestations of linguistic organization is produced, we know not the meaning, the sense, the significance that has orientated us towards the world in the way which produces the experience which we take for granted. We attribute agency, and conscious control, in the place of embodied orientation towards the world, we take ownership for conceptual abstract representations, knowing not why we are orientated toward such content, nor how such linguistic representations are produced, and why they are produced in a way towards content which we find enough importance to dedicate time to. We opt either for empiricism in regarding all that is experienced as being subjugated to the sensory received datum, or intellectualism in the conscious interpretation of all phenomenon. We ought to see the transcendence of both systems, in the unity of the totality of our Being, and see both perspectives as merely modes of interpreting ourselves, which need not be diametrically opposed, but rather two modes of interpretation which are themselves manifesting out of the same Being which seeks to orientate itself towards the world, they are two answers to a question which calls for the transcendence of both.

Why do we dedicate time towards the directedness of our gaze, and for what purpose? Why does our gaze move, and what drives us to orient ourselves in the manner which we find ourselves in the present? We ought to, in the first place, pose the questions. We ought to admit the unknown through admonition of its place as the unknown, and, if we want to find the answers that solve the questions we must look in the direction of solving the question of how the question itself is arising. In order to find the characteristics and order necessary to deal with existence itself, to manage Being in an optimal way, we must seek to understand it. In the process of understanding it, we must return to the thing’s themselves, to the phenomena as they are so presented to us, and work with the only tools we have, with the Being which is closest to us, that Being which we find ourselves as being. This is the task of the philosopher, of the seeker of truth, and more specifically, of the phenomenologist.

Does the Past Exist or Have Meaning?

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: June 24th 2020

The past informs the being which you currently find yourself as embodying, it creates potentialities which in their actualization inform the modification of your ascertained perceptual evaluation system, the current state of which, you find yourself inhabiting in the present. The present moments content contains underneath its subjective manifestation the state of being which you find yourself in now, both of which, the content and the underlying mode, is effectively modified by what has happened inside your historical development. The structure that comprises the evaluation, judgment, and filtration of possible experiential neomatic content is modified by what has happened to us, what we have experienced, patterns recognized, habits formed, and optimality accounted for, thus, the past matters insofar as it is the necessary precondition to our present experience, and is inextricably connected to the present and the future.

As for the pasts objective existence, we can start with the indubitable subjective claim that our present moment is appearing to exist for us, and while this holds for us subjectively in regards to the present, the past holds the same connotation. While we always are fallible as to our recollection of the past, our perception and subsequent conscious experience of the present, and our projection of likely or desired futures, we can state with a high degree of certainty that at the very least what is appearing in our conscious experience, whether it be memory, sensory experience, psychological formations, or projection and imagination, are all appearing to happen. This appearance of existence is a certainty to us, whether or not it actually coincides with reality, whether or not it is an illusion, or an inaccurate description based upon human limitations of cognitive capturing of phenomena, is a question of probability, and never of certainty, whether it be of the past, or otherwise. We do not exist in indubitable certainty in the Cartesian conception of being unable to doubt our doubt, or “I think, therefore I am” but rather, thinking and its psychological correlates are appearing to exist.

Insofar as our present moment subjective experience matters to us, which, we can agree does, as long as we value a pleasurable, satisfying, meaningful experience of life, the past has meaning to us. This meaning isn’t relevant to a being that isn’t us, and we can’t extrapolate it to a universal purpose without an air of falsifiable contention, but what we can say, is that insofar as we are life, insofar as we have a value system and better or worse experiences, that the past which informs these experiences is meaningful in its modification and actual effects in mediating our conscious content and psychological state, to us, and for us.

Navigating Misfortune

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: June 3rd 2020

In regards to the situation in which an individual appears to encounter misfortune at every turn, we don’t have enough context to accurately specify the moral worth of his character in its totality, nor in any specific case. Is the misfortune in his life to be attributed to a lack of awareness, an un optimized belief or value system, or the result of ignorance? In any of these cases the individual could’ve made adjustments to provide the grounds for better results, to a degree, depending on the more detailed context of the situations in which misfortune manifests itself.

Anytime someone finds themselves in a situation where it seems the world is crumbling around them, they should make damn sure it isn’t crumbling due to any fault of their own, because it often is. An exhaustive introspective reflective analysis is necessary to rule out any character deficiency, or methods which could produce more beneficial results. Oftentimes it is the lack of fulfilling of potential that can account for the misfortune which appears to mark our lives, and it is in the course correction that we alleviate our lives. If lack of awareness, or immorality, is found to be the root from which travesty springs forth, it is in the moral shame acquired in contemplating our inadequacy, transferred into moral dread of repetition, that naturally allows us to habituate ourselves to better handle problems of a similar domain in the future. This habitual course correction in terms of the punishments of conscience goes unconscious often, but it can be made explicit, through a mindful analysis, and thus be consciously reiterated to provide the means for a better navigation of novel problems.

In the alternative case, if the individual truly isn’t culpable, and they conclude “well I just won’t do anything since anything I do has a net negative influence on the world”, then they are surely naive, in that this type of claim is missing the significance of opportunity cost, in that the mere recession from the world is itself an action that implies the giving up of responsibilities and duties. The retreat from action implies the negative moral connotation of the opportunity cost of doing so, in so far as an individual has personal responsibilities that effect other people, whether it be in familial responsibility, or societal, and just in general in his duty to leave the world a better place than he found it. In relinquishing responsibility and duty, in retiring from the world, you are simultaneously resolving to relinquish the potentiality of doing good, being virtuous, affecting others and providing something beneficial and useful to your fellow man, to your family, to your general circle of influence.

No matter how much misfortune may appear to be manifesting from one’s actions, if it isn’t one’s fault, conclusively, then the diligent striving forward should be the response. Everyone faces misfortune, and it takes experience and practical wisdom to learn how to navigate it. How do we make peace with a life marked by misfortune, how do we best work to solve the set of all problems, and in doing so, make life worth living? This is a perennial question, how do we navigate the misfortune and suffering of existence? It would be quite a lengthy job for me to attempt to articulate an answer to this, but honestly, I think it would be in everyone’s best interest to attempt to articulate an answer to these questions themselves. To anyone who values the truth, who is seeking for ways to counter the malevolence and suffering inherent in the world, who wants a better life, a more moral life, the degree to which we can cope with such existential ambitions is in direct relation to how we are able to meaningfully provide an answer to these questions in regards to the wisest way to organize one’s life.

All in all, regardless of the content of one’s experience, and the apparent misfortune that marks it, I believe we should strive on diligently to fulfill the potential we all contain. Things only have “meaning” or “value” in the effect they have to sentient beings to life, naturally we value things based on our orientation to them, which we do through our inherent perceptual system, that is, preconceptual attention through the perceptive body, and we act out these values and meaning in every moment, whether were cognizant or not. It is due to the ability to have experience, that this meaning or value, the time we spend, the things we do, have moral significance. The actions we take can affect our and other sentient life’s experience, and due to that potential of affecting experience, for better or worse, we develop morality.

The Moral Upper Limit of Responsibility

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: May 25th 2020

While the adoption of responsibility and discipline in one’s life may appear to be beneficial to the individual, which it surely is, there exists a limit to which such virtues no longer are optimal. Many people say the limit here is spreading oneself too thin, or adopting more responsibility than one can handle, but in these cases, we are no longer successfully adopting responsibility. Here I want to assume that the responsibilities, and discipline we apply to being industrious, or orderly, or in the duties we voluntary undertake, are all physically and mentally possible in a successful manner. Given this framework, I propose, there is still a limit to the usefulness and beneficiality of further adoption of responsibility, and that limit has to do with the effect that our actions have on other people.Once a given adoption of responsibility effectively and unjustly removes the opportunity of others to accept responsibility, in effect, once there is no longer the possibility of others being able to voluntarily accept responsibility in a manner that is detrimental to their wellbeing, then you may question whether the limit of your actions in terms of duty has been overstepped. In this case, you may gain the personal character advantage in being able to hold a heavier burden, thus sharpening individual discipline and intellect in ordering chaos, but, you do so at the price of compassion for the growth available to others. This limit, like most golden means, requires experiential and contemplative wisdom in discerning, but that it exists, cannot be doubted.

In addition to limiting the ability for others to adopt responsibility, the excessive undertaking of additional duties in one’s life may lead one to resent others for whom he is effectively removing obstacles from. While your time, energy, and mental effort is spent in carrying out excessive duties, you may notice a growing resentment towards those who could’ve, and perhaps should have, done the task, that is, had you not been the one expending all the resources in undertaking it. This may be personally rationalized by a self-reflective justification by the appearance of acting virtuously, and doing the right thing. If this excessive responsibility limit has been crossed, then the individual may feel contempt for those who have not opted for a similar path. Far too often this type of personality trait is represented in the more orderly and disciplined types, in trait conscientiousness, as they are restless in pursuing careers, and dedicated towards a cause. Those high in trait conscientiousness often will continue working and are unsatisfied with things being undone, and thus will be the first to alleviate problems, the only problem is, they often cross the line in removing the opportunity for others to do so, hindering their growth. They often oversee the fact that they effectively are removing potentiality for others, and see themselves as doing the right thing. From a virtue ethicists standpoint, they surely are being virtuous, they are growing in responsibility, and are better able to organize chaos, yet they are blind to the implications of their actions on other people, which is truly missing the mark of greatness, which is quantified as morally bad in the utilitarian system, as they remove the wellbeing which could be potentially afforded to others had they had the chance to adopt the responsibility themselves.

There is a fine line between licentiousness, proper fulfilling of duty, and over excessive adoption of responsibility, and the management and correct view in regards to this aspect of life can be life altering in its optimization. Often times we need to look outside ourselves, not only at what we can do to make things better, but what we ought not to do to make things better, for ourselves, and our expanding circle of influence. The bigger the circle of influence we wish to effect positively, the less focus we need to place on the actual individual action we undertake, and more upon the effect of the action upon the people whom we are including in the moral analysis. The greater the circle of influence, the greater the introspection, analysis, contemplation, and weighing our actions ought to require, and for this, we must look towards the wellbeing not only of ourselves, but of those we care about, for the benefit not only of others, but, paradoxically, for our own benefit and optimization of life experience as well.

Inclination Towards Authenticity in Recognition of Manifesting the Persona

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: May 19th 2020

The persona is that which we present through the embodiment of an underlying archetypal pattern of Being when we want someone to like us, it is the state of Being which posits the expression of what we believe would be appealing in the other person’s eyes. We should be wary in this projection, or once we realize that our mode of being in relation to someone is characterized by the will to be appreciated, liked, respected, or lusted after. The mindfulness in recognizing the personas emergence is the first step towards an authentic resolution, or modification, which can be consciously directed. From this mode of being, that of the persona’s dominance, it is easy for us to embellish who we are, or spin things in an appealing manner, effectively applying a mask to our true nature in the revelation of who we are, the act of doing such, is the persona embodied. If we can be mindful of entering into this mode of being, we can acknowledge our intent from which it has an end of producing, and seek to modify it, in either of two directions. We can either embellish the mask, and continue towards deception, or we can seek to be as honest as possible. Our inclination towards either one of the poles, whether it be honesty or deception, is determined by a number of factors. The amount of pride and confidence we have in who we truly are, how appealing our true nature is, how virtuous, or full of vice, we may happen to be, and our learned habits. The natural biological inclination tends towards deception, I’d say, on the average, while there is an evolutionary benefit in honesty and trust, the choice depends on our temperament, acquired character trait, and circumstantial navigation. Whether or not our true nature is appealing or not, I argue, we should lean towards the side of honesty in any moment on which the persona is noticed as dominating the psyche, for multiple reasons.

One reason why honesty is optimal as a corrective course to the personas emergence is that, if we do otherwise, if we continue down the path of being deceptive and putting on the mask of the persona, we not only deceive the other, but run the risk of deceiving ourselves by doing so, we contain the possibility of believing the deception, thus leading to a heightened sense of ego, and altogether, creating further dissonance between who we are and who we think we are. In addition, if we are honest in the presentation of our Being, especially in situations where we desire to be admired, the result can be beneficial to us, on an individual level, regardless of the other person’s respect or admiration, as either result can tell us something about ourselves and the other person. This honesty or authenticity in modifying the persona, doesn’t necessarily call for a radical truth telling, or admission of more than would be optimal for the solution. It merely points to not allowing us to be dominated by the psyche’s desire to be attractive. While it isn’t inherently a negative thing to be admired, or to will to be attractive to someone, we should want to do this through an authentic representation of ourselves. Oftentimes an authentic representation of ourselves does mean the compassionate navigation of truth claims, that is, not bluntly stating things, but wisely omitting unnecessary or hurtful content with the intention of the best long term result for the other person. If we truly want the best for someone, we should act so as to manifest what we believe to be the best content to display in order to aide them. The truthful authentic representation of ourselves doesn’t always mean telling the truth, it means not pretending to be someone we’re not, not stating falsehoods, or falsely representing our beliefs. This can be optimally navigated not through radical honesty, but through temperance and restriction, through openness to expression of who we truly are.

Here we have four cases in the authentic representation of ourselves. If we present our Being honestly (to the degree that we can) and the person for whom we seek admiration responds positively, we succeed and everyone is happy and we learn that who we truly are is actually in alignment with the values of the other person. If we seek admiration from someone, it is out of desire or admiration we have for the other person, which implies that our success in gaining their admiration tells us the things we aim at are conducive the type of person we wish to attract. If an honest approach to correcting for the personas emergence works out in our favor, we learn that the person we authentically are is in alignment with what we value, as we judge the other person to be someone who contains, to a degree, traits which we value.

Stemming from the same framework above, if the other person is perceived as truly someone who we respect or contains virtues or traits which we value, and our persona becomes modified by a conscious intention of honesty and authentic representation of our Being, yet we are received negatively, or are rejected, it appears we have lost. But we have gained something through this knowledge, of which a critical, honest, self-examination will determine the nature of. Perhaps there truly is something wrong with us, to which, further inquiry could enlighten us, and we could improve. On the other hand, in the case our authentic self is not desired by other person, perhaps we misjudged their values, perhaps the things they value truly are not the things in which we do, in which case, we no longer will desire their admiration. In either case, individually, we can grow and navigate existence, except, we are doing it from a place of authenticity.  

If we recognize the persona and continue under its influence, free from conscious modification in the direction of authenticity, and we are well received by the person we seek admiration from, it appears we have won, but as far as I can see, this is a loss. The persona which is accepted, and valued, is not an authentic representation of ourselves, and therefore, we can take no pride in admiration from the other person. We merely have succeeded in deception, which, as time will show, we will pay for, as there is truly nothing which goes unaccounted for. As we struggle to maintain the persona, we may fall into self-aggrandizing, in delusions of grandeur, and believe ourselves to be someone we are not, leading to psychological confusion, and further distancing from psychological individualization. The fracturing of the psyche, and the domination of any given archetype, in this situation, the persona, will result in dissonance, suffering, and, on a practical note, given the relationship produced by such actions, it will inevitably fall apart as soon as the other person comes to their senses and takes a peek under the mask at our true nature. Dante denoted the innermost circle of Hell as consisting in those who partake in deception, and that is exactly what our experience will contain of once we walk down the path of self-deception. On the other hand, the person we have successfully fooled, will suffer the pain of wasting time, of losing trust in another human, in effectively being deceived. The truth always comes out, and the suffering it will cause the deceived is no arbitrary thing, it won’t be good, that’s for sure, and the resentment and bitterness that results from such experiences, will add insult to injury to the suffering we are already undergoing as a result of such pursuits. So we should really be wary lest we fall down this path!

In the last case, if we continue down the path of deception, in the personas will manifesting itself in an inauthentic representation of ourselves, and the other person rejects us, than we find ourselves in a situation where not only did we lack the confidence to be ourselves, but the person we thought the other would like still was not received, meaning, not only could we not authentically be someone who is attracted by the other person, but even when we pretend to be something we aren’t, we still couldn’t achieve positive evaluation from someone whose perspective we value. The suffering caused from lack of confidence, the pain of failing, even though vice, may provide the groundwork of negative reinforcement towards attempting authenticity, or another mode of Being. This may be the benefit in failure, in this case, that we learn that such a pursuit is not only successful, but that who we ought to be needs to change, our strategy didn’t work, and change is revealed as necessary, at least in how we present ourselves in the face of someone whose opinion we value. This leaves us in the position to assume that authenticity itself may be optimal, since this method surely didn’t work out for us.

We always can misjudge the character of someone, in which case we can determine by their rejection of values we contain or deem important. We also can learn if we are not the type of person who can be desired, in which case we should evaluate our flaws and set out to work. In either case, the perceived negative effect of rejection by tilting towards honesty in the projection of our persona, not only saves us from the perils of being admired as someone we are not, saves us from self-deception, but offers up the Being in which we should desire to be appreciated, admired, respected, or wanted, the Being of our authentic self, who we truly are.

What United the Great Men: Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, Frankl

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: May 18th 2020

What drives men to pursue philanthropy, men like Orwell, or Solzhenitsyn, or Viktor Frankl to expose the world’s travesties, to put human suffering on display and advise us on how to overcome it? Great men such as these were successfully able to utilize their talents and experiences to bring something meaningful into existence, each in their own way. Here we will explore their stories, and the archetypal structure which they all embodied, so we too can learn from great men, and attempt to embody the spirit of leaving humanity in a better place than we found it.

George Orwell, being of lower middle class upbringing, was employed as a young man in the British Police force, serving in colonial India in the 1920s. He saw the injustice caused by foreign dominion over people who didn’t desire their presence. Out of guilt, and repentance for the injustice he saw through becoming part of such a system, he endeavored to pursue a course of correction for the sins of his Being. He voluntarily undertook the challenge of subjugating himself to the lowest working class, emerged himself in their culture, studied their misfortune and the content of their lives. Being himself an intelligent writer, he sought to expose the many problems of the working class, to bring to the light of day their suffering, and their tragedies, the terrible working conditions, the housing crisis, the food and economic poverty. He published The Road to Wigan Pier, not only revealing to the upper classes the plight of the lower class, but offering criticism and advice to the Socialist party in how they should change their ways to better unite to face the difficulties of the suffering of the less fortunate.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a Russian soldier during the beginning of WW2. In a letter to a friend, he criticized Russia’s disorganization at the time of German redaction of a peace agreement between the two countries, and subsequent attack on Russia. Russia’s unpreparedness was obvious, and he spoke to this point in his letter. The apprehension of this letter led to his arrest and imprisonment within the Russian prison camp system, which was unjustly imprisoning and putting to work millions of its own members for any perceived criticism or rebellion against the Russian government, which, at this point was a perverted Marxist system, stimulated with totalitarianism. During his time in the Russian camps, he documented the terrible experience he underwent, and the stories he collected along the way. He wrote to the torture, malnourishment, excessive prolongation, the freezing climate, and the altogether hellish conditions within which some 40-60 million Russians died in. Once the Americans freed him from his final camp, he exposed the camps conditions, and what the government was propagating in his novel The Gulag Archipelago. He published this work first under an alias, as the continued totalitarian nature of the government would have condemned him once again had they uncovered his identity. He exposed the hidden Russian gulag system to western Europe and the rest of the world, for what it truly was, as the rest of the world was wholly ignorant of the details of what had happened there. In addition to such acts of bravery in the face of evil, he remarked as to what enabled himself and the prisoners to strive forward in the face of such calamities, the pursuance of meaning. Individual responsibility and the strength of the human will, he offered, in short, the antidote to chaos and suffering.

Viktor Frankl was a Jewish psychologist in Germany at the start of WW2, and was subsequently imprisoned at a variety of their prison labor camps, one of which was Auschwitz. He too, like Solzhenitsyn, wrote to the tragedy and cruelty of the oppressive governing state, and the affect it had on demoralizing and killing millions within its own borders. During his stay in the prison camps, Victor used his psychological knowledge to alleviate the suffering of his fellow countrymen, to help bring them through some of the worst conditions involuntarily forced upon human beings. After the war, he released Man’s Search for Meaning, a novel exposing the system in its first half, and in the second half, outlining his system of logotherapy, of a truthful pursuance of meaning to counterbalance the malevolence and misfortune found in the world. By providing a psychological system of meaning to alleviate illness, sickness, and misfortune, Viktor Frankl not only gave an anecdotal explanation to the value of such pursuit, but provided the means by which one can implement a similar strategy to one’s own life to alleviate suffering and provide wellbeing.

In all three cases, these great men encountered malevolence, and tragedy, discovered a way to overcome it, and using the powers they contained, brought back something valuable to the people. This was their way of pursuing meaning in the world, and the amount of virtue they displayed in doing so, makes them all heroes in their own right. They went through hell, discovered how to survive, made it back to Earth, and revealed the optimal pathway through the shadow of death.

Those that carry the biggest burden, who take the most responsibility, are the ones we still talk about, are the ones which have provided mankind with the greatest boon. As Jesus Christ carried the biggest responsibility (archetypally / metaphorically), that of suffering for the sins of all mankind, we thus still revel in his virtue, and his story is known by all. Regardless of the supernatural claims, the archetypal nature of his story is that which inspires the great men of history, and whether they know it or not, his story lives on in the actions of the philanthropist, in the words of the philosopher, in the lives of the great men of history. It is to him who takes the most responsibility, who carries his cross for the sake of repaying the debt he owes to the world, and by doing so, saves others, who finds the highest purpose, and to him we owe a debt of gratitude for the current state of the world we find ourselves in. We think the world we find ourselves in is free, and it is free, to a degree, more so now than it ever has been, but it was forged to be so at a high cost, the cost of error, of miscalculation, of injustice, of evil, of malevolence and inhumanity, and the rebellion against such forces, through the suffering, the deaths, the struggle and the perseverance of millions before our time. The cost was paid in effort, time, suffering, poverty, war and blood far before our time. It is the result of thousands of years of sacrifice, and to call this freedom free is to be naive to those people over millions who have laid down their lives in pursuit of a greater future. Sacrifice is a bargain with the future, it is the payment of the present, for a result in the future. This negotiation was carried out by our forefathers and generations past who fought for rights, for knowledge, for truth, for peace, for freedom, and their fight costed millions their lives, many their physical and psychological wellbeing, many endured great sufferings in the negation of injustice, so that now, we can see the fruits of their bargain.

We yield the fruit of that future, and bear the burden of honoring those sacrifices by pursuing what is meaningful in our lives. We hold the responsibility of providing a better future for our children and generations to come, we owe it to them, as we are in debt to those who come before us, to leave the world a better place than we found it. We ought to make a similar sacrifice, a similar negotiation with existence, so that we can provide the ground for a better future for those who come after us, just as we were afforded the luxury of the world we find ourselves in today (in comparison to how things were for those who came before us). It is great men like Orwell who provided the brave counter narrative that spurred the legislative aid that brought millions out of poverty. Orwell went to the slums of Wigan, and Sheffield, went to the coal mines and was able to expose the conditions of millions who lived in an altogether horrendous lower class, in an altogether different world than that of the bourgeois and upper class. It was through his elicit stories that an awareness of the profound suffering was detailed, and provisions could be made for their alleviation. It was his voluntary sacrifice of time and wellbeing, to dive to the depths of humanity, that led to him to be able to bring to civilization the stories of the underworld, so collectively, we could solve the problems which we didn’t know existed. Since the problems of the poverty of the lower class were brought into the spotlight in the early thirties, much effort has been done to alleviate the conditions of the poor and working classes, so now, their baseline, the average member of the lower class, is a king in comparison to those who lived just 70 years before. The change, the improvement, didn’t come for free, it came at the sacrifice of many people, in the face of adversity, it took courage and it took people navigating their lives towards a cause that superseded their existence, it took sacrifice of the present for the gain of the future.

It is in the pursuit of meaning, of doing something that has implications beyond ourselves, that we prove to be worthy of the lives we should be grateful for having, and it is in this pursuit that united men such as Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, and Frankl. They all saw the potential they contained to do more than they had to, to do something good, and right, and it was never easy. It is in this adoption of responsibility and in the creation of something valuable that we repay the debt with which we are charged. We all have different abilities, different potential, different manifestations of the divine, yet the objective potential for pursuing a higher value, is something inherent in all of us. As Jesus is the archetypal son, God is the father, the Holy Spirit is in each of us, the potential to align ourselves with the greater good, a higher ideal, lies within every man and woman’s very Being. Jesus was the greatest articulation of what the manifestation of God himself should embody at the time, and in being the greatest manifestation of the highest good he was charged the highest responsibility, and the highest suffering, that of taking up his cross, taking the suffering of the world upon his shoulders, and paying the ultimate price for the sin of mankind. As God is the highest representational symbol of “the highest ideal”, Jesus the highest manifestation of that ideal, and us, being intricately interwoven with the potential of alignment with that ideal through the holy spirit, we too hold the potentiality of manifesting it, each in a different form, in a way conducive to our situation and competencies.

Forbearance and Abstinence Based on Human Potentiality to Overcome Suffering

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: April 24th 2020

Russian prisoners who survived the Gulag Archipelago, Jewish prisoners in German prison camps as depicted in Man’s Search for Meaning, African slaves, prisoners of war throughout history, all have been able to valiantly find meaning in the worst atrocities committed to human beings – all without medication, or vice, to alleviate their suffering. How can we justify crutches, moral vices, or medication for less traumatic, less suffering inducing stressors, when those before us have endured tenfold and been able to survive, find meaning, and live happy, despite their much greater suffering, misfortune, and injustice?

If none of these people were afforded an escape, or an alleviation, and they had to find meaning, find a way to psychologically remain strong and continue living, why do we, who find ourselves in much more fortunate circumstances, deserve the ability to escape? How can we justify the escape from the misfortune of life when the rest of the world suffers, and has suffered, to a much greater extent? Everyone goes through horrible mental states, not everyone has the same experiences, and obviously some people’s justifications and circumstances imply a more profound suffering than many, yet given the horrendous crimes against humanity which we’ve valiantly overcome, individually, and societally, how can many of us still not see the potential as proven by our forefathers of the human ability to overcome the most horrendous difficulties, and in so recognizing not be utterly convinced of our own inert potential to do the same in our own lives?

If those in the worst situations imaginable, such as those who underwent the atrocities of the twentieth century, were offered medication to alleviate their suffering they surely would have taken it. If they were offered an escape, a pleasure, a pastime, a way out of their situation, they surely wouldn’t hesitate in accepting it. Yet the possibility of such things doesn’t make it optimal. The virtue of forbearance and courage in not reducing the experience through artificial means implies a greater potential gain in the overcoming of challenges. The task of running one-hundred miles barefoot is more impressive than he who runs one-hundred miles in shoes. He who undergoes the pain of existence through the strength of his character and will develops a stronger character than he who alleviates his suffering. There is a line, discernible with wisdom, of the place in which we should take medicine, at the place in which we should shirk responsibility and discipline for the optimization of wellbeing, a point where continued endurance would not provide a character benefit, but rather be harmful. That line is separate for every individual, yet we must not, in anticipatory anxiety, relieve ourselves of self responsibility and independence too soon, we must push to that line, rather than alleviate ourselves of the burden through fear of failure while we still contain the potential of going farther and thus overcoming more. This takes wisdom, and it is a necessary caveat to the voluntary “cross bearing” and suffering inherent in facing the demons of existence. Temperance through fire, forging through pressure, character creation, virtue establishment, these are things which any individual, in effectively integrating his psyche, should wish to promote. It is in those challenges that present themselves to us, in those moments of mental weakness, anxiety, anger, and sadness, that we are tested the most, and to which, in relation to, we have the greatest potential for improvement. The only determining factor is how we deal with these moments, these period, how we choose to cope with existence itself in its ups and downs. That which we do in this world has an effect on our character, on the totality of our Being. The way we navigate life now, influences our further navigation of life. The more inclined and susceptible we are to vice in the moment, the more we indulge in it, the more likely we are to in the future. We must not set ourselves up for continued suffering, nor continued weakness, we must only act strongly, in that which is most virtuous, in order to increase in virtue, and increase the probability of responding to difficulty with strength and virtue in the future.

Character development is more important than hedonistic pleasure. That truth, virtue, and personal growth, in the ability to overcome life’s challenges independent of substance or external aide, is more valuable than ignorance, bliss, and crutches upon sensual and psychological pleasure. Derivation of pleasure from virtue and from truth is greater than the pleasure gained from ignorance and sensory stimulation. I’m arguing the pleasure of truth, and virtue, outweighs any potential pleasure of ignorance and sensory pleasure, while drugs surely register higher dopamine, I argue, that a life in abstinence and of pursuing virtuous conduct outweighs one to the contrary, but of course, the issue becomes more complex as we balance the two, and it becomes a question under which domains is ignorance better than knowledge, under which domains should we pursue virtuous conduct or prolonged gain over immediate pleasure, etc.

It’s just hard, and by hard I mean impossible, in practical life, to prove one course of action is better than another, given our lack of foresight of all the variables and the unquantifiable nature of wellbeing, especially in relation to long possible future time branches in different action causal chains. These things are easy to philosophically reason but hard to apply in convincing others of their actual implementing. While the pursuance of meaning and the voluntary undertaking of difficulty in the pursuit of what one values, in personal growth, is accepted by all on a theoretical level as being “good” and praiseworthy”, to see it implemented in the lives of people who haven’t experientially realized the actual benefit in carrying out such activities, the change in lifestyle towards one in this direction is almost impossible to instantiate from the outside. It merely is an individual choice, a path to be undertaken by the willing participant, who opts for it himself. While we can gain inspiration, and the thought may come from outside, the undertaking of voluntary change, the adoption of responsibility and the pursuit of what one considers consciously as meaningful, is something that must be pursued from the individual of his own volition. All we can do, as contemplatives, as philosophers or psychologists, is point out the potentiality of such a path existing, and offer logical and rational explanations to its benefit, then, the individual must do more than believe in said justifications, he must test them in his own life. If they are optimal, and provide the meaning which he seeks, he will inevitably fall under the sway of such meaning seeking and carrying out. If he doesn’t find the optimal experiential evidence, he will revert to nihilism, or a less optimal pathway through life.