Is meaning a construct that exists beyond the domain of human languages rather than within it

To understand the nature of human language – thus to understand any human story, written or spoken, regardless of its length or language – is not at all related to trying to understand what a particular story or a particular language are trying to describe. To really begin to understand our human stories is to try to understand what language can and cannot imply. Thus what is absent from stories is just as important as what is contained within them. For one cannot begin to determine our individual thus our civilization’s imaginative, literary, oral and communications limits by treating words and speech as descriptions – no matter how advanced or complex they may appear to be.

Can empathy and the survival instinct/self-destructive instinct coexist

Perhaps our existence is some kind of strange cosmic competition between the search for immortality and the survival/self-destructive #instinct.

The important point here is how I combine the terms ‘survival’ and ‘self-destructive’ and refer to them as the same instinct. I propose that the basic #instinct (to survive) can be applied only to an individual – to a member of a group. However, it cannot be applied to a group of any kind thus it cannot be a viable source of any social order – primitive or advanced, human or animal. If we apply the basic instinct (to survive) to an entire group – especially an “intelligent” group – then it becomes the group’s self-destructive instinct. Why?

An intelligent group, within which each member wants to satisfy only his or her own needs, cannot survive because the product of the group’s action will cause its self-destruction. Why? As the individuals’ intelligence levels increase – as well as their ability to apply them via physical systems – so does their ability to destroy one another.

The answer? Once the group becomes intelligent it is necessary for it begin to collaborate in order to eliminate all traces of competition. If it does not remove the need for competition – or its basic survival instinct – then all new ideas and all new technologies will be used to oppose or counter other members’ ideas and technologies – not to create a global good.

Thus the self-destructive instinct arises out of our inability to overcome the fundamental nature of our shared #human character and not as a result of our inability to overcome our much later and much more sophisticated invented cultural, political, religious and other #stories or #narratives. Such stories are nothing more than our failed attempts to justify or explain the basic survival instinct. By hiding the instinct within cultural, political, religious, and other stories we explain it thus preserve it.

Perhaps it is impossible for us to become humane and practice empathy until we become immortal.

We are so afraid of nonexistence, as individuals and as a civilization, we are willing to destroy ourselves, one another and the planet in order to acquire and control matter. Only because when we own and control matter we feel important and permanent.

We have convinced ourselves that matter carries our image within it and that we carry its image within us but only because we depend on it so much. It is our very dependence on matter – especially our need to own it, to keep it, and to embed ourselves within it (theoretically and physically) – that prevent us from transcending it theoretically and physically.

It is impossible to make matter permanent. Only the energy/data construct is permanent and even the energy/data construct changes its properties and therefore its states thus not even it is a permanent construct.

#Knowledge that refuses to see that it has embedded itself within #matter cannot begin to perceive the need to transcend matter. And, perhaps more importantly, knowledge that attempts to transcend matter by transplanting itself to a different body (or a different type of matter) is unable to begin to grasp the limitations created by matter, let alone transcend them.

What will it take to change our thinking and our actions from treating the material realm as the important one to treating the invisible energy/data realm as the important one?

Why we are not intelligent, yet

What makes us unintelligent?

 

Point 1.

We all know that we don’t know what the mind is – as a psychological, philosophical or spiritual construct.

Point 2.

We all know that we don’t know what the brain is – as a physiological construct.

Point 3.

We all know that we don’t know how much there is to know.

Thus we could say: it seems that we don’t know that we don’t know what intelligence is or how it comes about – precisely because we are so arrogant, precisely because we are so unintelligent.

 

So, how can we say that we are intelligent?

All we can say is that we are aware. We are self-aware entities. However, our awareness or self-awareness is very limited and we are unwilling to expand it. It is because our awareness is so limited and because we are unwilling to expand it that we should be able to conclude that we are not intelligent. Unfortunately we don’t. Yet another proof that we are unintelligent.

We are highly aware animals. We are aware of our own actions and we are aware of our immediate surrounds. However, we are very unintelligent. In fact, we are so unintelligent that despite the fact we agree on the points stated above we are unable to sense our own inability to think, our own inability to imagine and create unique new concepts, our own inability to change and ultimately our own inability to perceive the absence of intelligence and logic in our own behavior.

So, what would make us intelligent?

I think that some of the following prospects could be our starting point.

I propose: if we could become immortal and if we could make the element know as time irrelevant then we could begin to consider our own intelligence in a serious way.

For example: if we were immortal and we were around for so long that we stopped considering time as the most important aspect of our existence and we if witnessed the end and the beginning of the universe so many times that we stopped considering it a significant event then we could begin to talk about intelligence.

I suppose a true intelligence appears to be absolutely illogical and bizarre thus invisible to anyone but itself or someone of equal or greater intelligence. Thus the construct we define as the absolute or total intelligence, our notion of god, is absolutely or totally invisible to anyone but itself and someone of equal or greater intelligence. It is not visible to us.

Thus all we are is an awareness. Specifically: we are a self-aware construct unable to imagine let alone understand, explain and expand its own limitations – its lack of intelligence.

Why do we stop our personal development

Most people stop evolving once they reach ‘a certain level’. What is that ‘certain level’? Why do they stop ‘there’? Why is it different for different people?

People end their personal development when they can no longer perceive any social benefit to their personal development. When their social circle – no matter how small or how large, how educated or how uneducated, how wealthy or how poor it may be – begins to question their personal development they end it in order to preserve their social position. Or we could say people continue to develop only while it is socially acceptable.

If we analyze the above facts we can see that for the majority of people the scope of their personal development is created and controlled by their social circle – thus their personal development never really begins.

To me this suggests that there is a personal self-image and a public self-image. Needless to say, each is an element of one’s personality thus they’re inseparable. Both of them want to evolve but the social self-image seems to be able to control the personal self-image and its development because of the unevolved ego. Currently the public self-image element of the ego seems to be both: created by the dominant social narrative and driven by it. In other words, in our current society the ‘self’ cannot see itself as a success (or as a self-actualized construct) without some external recognition. The ‘self’ needs to be recognized and approved by other external entities (other selves) before it can be satisfied with its own development.

Unfortunately, other external entities (other selves) may not be able to develop in the same direction and with the same speed for a large number of reasons. They might not have given an idea or a direction enough time, they might not have thought about it deeply enough, they might not share the same interests, their genetic makeup might mean they develop different psychological and physiological tendencies and so on and so forth. A large number of physiological and socio-psychological elements shape the members of one’s social circle and any one of them might make it impossible for them to allow themselves to explore a new idea or move in a new direction.

I propose that this occurs mainly because the personal self-image element of one’s ego has not matured enough to recognize that the individual’s full development is that which causes social changes. Or if one does recognize that one’s personal development causes social changes then often one is not strong enough to complete his or her development. One’s complete personal development can force nations, societies, etc. thus our entire civilization to change. A completed personal development – meaning it has not been cut short by the social expectations exerted by the social circle – creates social changes because it forces most other individuals and groups to recognize the same set of ideas, abilities or qualities within themselves.

Unfortunately, most people end their personal development at the smallest hint that they might become isolated and socially unacceptable. However, as we all know, progress begins when one moves beyond the existing theories, ideologies, formulas, systems, etc. thus beyond what is socially acceptable and more importantly beyond the known. Moving beyond the known requires a great amount of courage and more importantly a great deal of learning, skill and experience. One needs to be able to convert personal experiences and personal perceptions of oneself and his or her place in the universe into a valid and useful social construct that can be examined and used by others. Furthermore, one has to be able to talk to others about it – despite their opposition – and to convince them of its value.

Thus we could say: a new personal logic (created by one’s examination of his or her imagination and experiences) thus a new personal self-image can be created and it can transform others but only if the person is strong enough to create a new social self-image and then promote it rather than the accepted social ideas or actions.

The monster’s dream of a monster is the monster’s dream of its monstrosities

A monster dreams of its enemy monster.

Its enemy monster dreams of it.

So each dreams of the other.

Each knows the other is the greatest monster.

So neither can do anything to reduce their own monstrosity.

All their thoughts and all their actions feed their own thus the other’s monstrosity.

But why cannot the monsters see their own monstrosities?

For the greatest fear is to imagine oneself without any fear.

Rather than being without fear they remain without humanity – the monsters.