Making the best choice of lifestyle in the face of

[PhilosophiaQueen]

face of alternatives...

My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same. It's the same core archetypes again and again and again, meaning only intensity is truly worth living for, unless one carries enough baggage as to make oneself neurotic. Then the most honest activity is one that causes both psychological and physiological intensity. It's the only way of maximalizing liveliness. Here's a few examples of how the baggage shows it self.

“All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.” - George Orwell.

Wittgenstein said philosophy repels those who suspect it is a timewaste due to language confusion in it, thus reinforcing language confusion in it. Too many philosophers have been freaks, this makes it overly obvious how society's unminimalistic unnaturality has gotten to them SOMEHOW.

Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science, and yet those in it work long hours. The abstract parts of science as bloated (i.e. few jobs) also in the west and they too attract freaks. Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y. Every snowflake is unique but in the end its just variations of the same old archetype anyway. Nothing new under the sun. Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.

Idealism, morality. "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." yeah who cares? Life goes on whether some philosopher sits around in his house. To care about the things Kant and others do is just an arbitrary use of one's time. They must carry much subconscious baggage to have such great passion.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

The concept of keeping a diary. Who really cares about the past? It ain't coming back anyway. Better to be living a story than sitting around thinking about one, unless one has something yet learned for preparation for life.

Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept.


Humans evolved to DO after all, not sitting around (sedentary). Slack activities induce no extremity or intensity. Everything else is just unnatural. Or pershaps something has passed me by, not illuminated by my limited psyche. Now, try to counter my points; prove that there's something more to it, ultimately!

[Mark Question]

you seem to know all that you have written down like a true writer. and with that nickname and all. you have to have true experience about all that you know so well. so i am only learning from you willingly, not arguing against anything. so, what about "those who are constantly doing something like they dont want to stop listening their own thoughts?" do you know those kind of people too? and what you mean "unnatural"? something religious or mystical, scientifically not seen? same old same old words and meanings like "village people", "vatican city" and "thebes polis"? thank you and sorry my same old english.

ps. i must say that life, birth and death are especially so last summer and old farts dull boring to death consept!

[PhilosophiaQueen]

Your english is quite unclear, but I tried my best in replying to your post.

so, what about "those who are constantly doing something like they dont want to stop listening their own thoughts?" do you know those kind of people too?

I know some people like that. And it's good to be impulsively animalistic - it's the way it should be. However, one shoould do activities which feed these impulses, make it all the more intense.

and what you mean "unnatural"? something religious or mystical, scientifically not seen?

One symptom is the diabetes epidemic. People should use their bodies, but don't. Some even get hooked on random sedentary activities, which also is wrong. Not to mention most sedentary activities don't bring intensity.

same old same old words and meanings like "village people", "vatican city" and "thebes polis"?

If you're refering to how archetypes show themselves again and again, then yeah sure I guess you could use those as examples.

[lancek4]

face of alternatives...

My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same. It's the same core archetypes again and again and again, meaning only intensity is truly worth living for, unless one carries enough baggage as to make oneself neurotic. Then the most honest activity is one that causes both psychological and physiological intensity. It's the only way of maximalizing liveliness. Here's a few examples of how the baggage shows it self.

“All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.” - George Orwell.

Wittgenstein said philosophy repels those who suspect it is a timewaste due to language confusion in it, thus reinforcing language confusion in it. Too many philosophers have been freaks, this makes it overly obvious how society's unminimalistic unnaturality has gotten to them SOMEHOW.

Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science, and yet those in it work long hours. The abstract parts of science as bloated (i.e. few jobs) also in the west and they too attract freaks. Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y. Every snowflake is unique but in the end its just variations of the same old archetype anyway. Nothing new under the sun. Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.

Idealism, morality. "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." yeah who cares? Life goes on whether some philosopher sits around in his house. To care about the things Kant and others do is just an arbitrary use of one's time. They must carry much subconscious baggage to have such great passion.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

The concept of keeping a diary. Who really cares about the past? It ain't coming back anyway. Better to be living a story than sitting around thinking about one, unless one has something yet learned for preparation for life.

Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept.


Humans evolved to DO after all, not sitting around (sedentary). Slack activities induce no extremity or intensity. Everything else is just unnatural. Or pershaps something has passed me by, not illuminated by my limited psyche. Now, try to counter my points; prove that there's something more to it, ultimately!

Sounds like you are describing the variety of human experience and you don't like it.
I am not sure how one would go about finding criteria by which to determine how to make the best use of your time, since you would be using unacknowledged criteria by which to judge the criteria you would be using to make the best use of your time - which means you would be merely spending time, worst or best. And in fact while you were perhaps coming accross better things you could be doing with your time you would be wasting that moment in attempting to come accross worse things.

Sounds like you have no idea what your talking about and are trying to make sense out of the chaos that is your unfulfilled life.

I wonder: is your post here adressing Witt and Orwell, cuz if it is I think you completely miss their point and are actually one of the people against which they made such assertion.

[chaz wyman]

face of alternatives...

My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same. It's the same core archetypes again and again and again, meaning only intensity is truly worth living for, unless one carries enough baggage as to make oneself neurotic. Then the most honest activity is one that causes both psychological and physiological intensity. It's the only way of maximalizing liveliness. Here's a few examples of how the baggage shows it self.

“All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.” - George Orwell.

Wittgenstein said philosophy repels those who suspect it is a timewaste due to language confusion in it, thus reinforcing language confusion in it. Too many philosophers have been freaks, this makes it overly obvious how society's unminimalistic unnaturality has gotten to them SOMEHOW.

Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science, and yet those in it work long hours. The abstract parts of science as bloated (i.e. few jobs) also in the west and they too attract freaks. Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y. Every snowflake is unique but in the end its just variations of the same old archetype anyway. Nothing new under the sun. Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.

Idealism, morality. "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." yeah who cares? Life goes on whether some philosopher sits around in his house. To care about the things Kant and others do is just an arbitrary use of one's time. They must carry much subconscious baggage to have such great passion.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

The concept of keeping a diary. Who really cares about the past? It ain't coming back anyway. Better to be living a story than sitting around thinking about one, unless one has something yet learned for preparation for life.

Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept.


Humans evolved to DO after all, not sitting around (sedentary). Slack activities induce no extremity or intensity. Everything else is just unnatural. Or pershaps something has passed me by, not illuminated by my limited psyche. Now, try to counter my points; prove that there's something more to it, ultimately!

Most peculiar! An interesting enough ramble through the twisted thorn ridden pathways of your imagination, but leaving very little of substance or meaning.
What exactly do you wish to complain about?

[PhilosophiaQueen]

Sounds like you are describing the variety of human experience and you don't like it.
I am not sure how one would go about finding criteria by which to determine how to make the best use of your time, since you would be using unacknowledged criteria by which to judge the criteria you would be using to make the best use of your time - which means you would be merely spending time, worst or best. And in fact while you were perhaps coming accross better things you could be doing with your time you would be wasting that moment in attempting to come accross worse things.

Sounds like you have no idea what your talking about and are trying to make sense out of the chaos that is your unfulfilled life.

I wonder: is your post here adressing Witt and Orwell, cuz if it is I think you completely miss their point and are actually one of the people against which they made such assertion.

This isn't even an argument considering you're just attacking me as a person. If there is a flaw in my argument which makes it crash to the ground if found, then that is what needs to be found, not generalized suspicions.

As for finding a criteria, a good lifestyle allows for as much intensity as often as possible, which also means as little downtime as possible. Also, as little side effects / consequences as possible to/of the core point of the lifestyle is desirable. Examples of lifestyle that brings intensity are sports, gangster, soldier, martial artist. If there's a lot of paperpushing and other gruntwork involved then it's not intense.

[chaz wyman]

Sounds like you are describing the variety of human experience and you don't like it.
I am not sure how one would go about finding criteria by which to determine how to make the best use of your time, since you would be using unacknowledged criteria by which to judge the criteria you would be using to make the best use of your time - which means you would be merely spending time, worst or best. And in fact while you were perhaps coming accross better things you could be doing with your time you would be wasting that moment in attempting to come accross worse things.

Sounds like you have no idea what your talking about and are trying to make sense out of the chaos that is your unfulfilled life.

I wonder: is your post here adressing Witt and Orwell, cuz if it is I think you completely miss their point and are actually one of the people against which they made such assertion.

This isn't even an argument considering you're just attacking me as a person. If there is a flaw in my argument which makes it crash to the ground if found, then that is what needs to be found, not generalized suspicions.

As for finding a criteria, a good lifestyle allows for as much intensity as often as possible, which also means as little downtime as possible. Also, as little side effects / consequences as possible to/of the core point of the lifestyle is desirable. Examples of lifestyle that brings intensity are sports, gangster, soldier, martial artist. If there's a lot of paperpushing and other gruntwork involved then it's not intense.

I think the problem here is that you have not really said anything very clearly.
Your initial post is a rambling complaint which does not accurately focus upon any thing in particular. It flits from flower to flower, but finds neither nectar nor poison.
There seems little else to attack but your style. And so, you take this as a personal attack.

[PhilosophiaQueen]

You said:

Sounds like you have no idea what your talking about and are trying to make sense out of the chaos that is your unfulfilled life.

Instead of showing where I go wrong, you unnecessarily chose to cast me as disorganized in my life. Just because you can't follow my chain doesn't turn it into just a mindless attack - it clearly isn't if you tried harder to interpet it. Instead you have choosen a generalized judgement consisting of "it's all just attacks", with no further attempt at understanding. You said:

Your initial post is a rambling complaint which does not accurately focus upon any thing in particular. It flits from flower to flower, but finds neither nectar nor poison.

Again very generalized as you see the examples I listed as just ramblings, but they're there to demonstrate what I'm talking of, and the extent it reaches. Thus it's obviously connected to the rest of my post.

[chaz wyman]

Your initial post is a rambling complaint which does not accurately focus upon any thing in particular. It flits from flower to flower, but finds neither nectar nor poison.

Again very generalized as you see the examples I listed as just ramblings, but they're there to demonstrate what I'm talking of, and the extent it reaches. Thus it's obviously connected to the rest of my post.

Okay - let's look at what you said.

My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same.

Arbitrary in what sense?
What do you mean unnatural?
Why do you think that diabetes is unnatural?
What is un-minimalistic. You seem to be implying that minimalism is natural.
Everything is the same?? Are you kidding - or do you mean everything except that which is different?
...and that is just the first sentence. Shall I go on?

Mush of the rest of your rant proscribes sitting down and thinking, as if walking around doing stuff is a remedy. That you say that doing some stuff is just the same old same old. Maybe if you stopped for a few minutes and actually THOUGHT about what you are trying to say then you would be more clear.

So why not sit in your throne (oh great queen)for a while and stop being defensive and read what people have written about what you have said. Philosophy requires some reflexion too. For that you need to sit down and use words in a meaningful way.

[PhilosophiaQueen]

Arbitrary in what sense?
What do you mean unnatural?
Why do you think that diabetes is unnatural?
What is un-minimalistic. You seem to be implying that minimalism is natural.

Obivously there's a diabetes epidemic since too many people live in a way their bodies weren't meant to. It's "out of synch" with the body, so to say. Thus it's unnatural and arbitrary. People, and not just a few, get hooked on all kinds of random sedentary activites. That's their baggage dominating over their bodies. Many hedonistic activites ultimately mean very little. Seeing it that way makes it easier to will oneself to do what's worth doing.

Everything is the same?? Are you kidding - or do you mean everything except that which is different? ...and that is just the first sentence. Shall I go on?

Everything's the same in that it's the same generalized, timeless patterns repeating, aka archetypes.

So why not sit in your throne (oh great queen)for a while and stop being defensive and read what people have written about what you have said. Philosophy requires some reflexion too. For that you need to sit down and use words in a meaningful way.

That's just a wordplay on Plato's philosopher kings. There was no further intended meaning in it. I supposed I should have thought more about the username though, if it can come off that way.

[chaz wyman]

Arbitrary in what sense?
What do you mean unnatural?
Why do you think that diabetes is unnatural?
What is un-minimalistic. You seem to be implying that minimalism is natural.

Obivously there's a diabetes epidemic since too many people live in a way their bodies weren't meant to

There is no 'meant to'. In a non urban pre-civilised (what you might call natural environment) life expectancy was around 35. Modern diets might not be ideal but they have extended our lives enourmously. The reason why there is obesity and diabetes is that those people are following their evolved interests and eating when every they can - they are being natural. We are evolved from the need to eat when we can.


. It's "out of synch" with the body, so to say. Thus it's unnatural and arbitrary.

I do not think you know the meaning of arbitrary.

People, and not just a few, get hooked on all kinds of random sedentary activites. That's their baggage dominating over their bodies. Many hedonistic activites ultimately mean very little. Seeing it that way makes it easier to will oneself to do what's worth doing.

It is natural to reserve your energy and avoid exercise. We are naturally evolved to conserve our energy. Lions spend all day laying down in the shade and only move to kill or steal the kill of a weaker animal..

Everything is the same?? Are you kidding - or do you mean everything except that which is different? ...and that is just the first sentence. Shall I go on?

Everything's the same in that it's the same generalized, timeless patterns repeating, aka archetypes.

Only in your mind. There are no archetypes - that is no more than a myth to organise and categorise that which should never be categorised. These categories are a choice. You generalisation is a choice.
You can see difference if you want to.

So why not sit in your throne (oh great queen)for a while and stop being defensive and read what people have written about what you have said. Philosophy requires some reflexion too. For that you need to sit down and use words in a meaningful way.

That's just a wordplay on Plato's philosopher kings.
There was no further intended meaning in it. I supposed I should have thought more about the username though, if it can come off that way.

Have you had a humourectomy?
So are you sitting down or running around? Or are they just the same?

[PhilosophiaQueen]

There is no 'meant to'. In a non urban pre-civilised (what you might call natural environment) life expectancy was around 35. Modern diets might not be ideal but they have extended our lives enourmously. The reason why there is obesity and diabetes is that those people are following their evolved interests and eating when every they can - they are being natural. We are evolved from the need to eat when we can.

What I mean by unnatural is that our bodies weren't meant to have so much free time for sedentary living, and so much food to eat. It's out of synch with the conditions evolution "had in in mind" when we evolved, thus unnatural. Yes, I know evolution isn't a thinking organism, it's just a metaphor.

It is natural to reserve your energy and avoid exercise. We are naturally evolved to conserve our energy. Lions spend all day laying down in the shade and only move to kill or steal the kill of a weaker animal..

Lions are different from us. And they did spend time playing in the stone age too. Activity is fun. Again we must return to the issue of unnaturality. As stated earlier we have much more free time than our bodies we're made to have. The entire structure of living has changed, and quite quickly too, leaving us with this. Also, my point about people getting hooked on all kinds of crap is still relevant.

Only in your mind. There are no archetypes - that is no more than a myth to organise and categorise that which should never be categorised. These categories are a choice. You generalisation is a choice. You can see difference if you want to.

I do see superficial differences, yes. But due to memories of the past being where they are, it won't ever be entirely unexpected or new. And I doubt we can so easily conclude it's only in the mind. Yes, they don't exist as anything physically distinct, it's more general patterns. But then again, as long as there exist minds which can perceive the universe the patterns will necessarily be reflected in those minds, which means the archetypal patterns have an indirect, material form through the going ons in our brains.

Have you had a humourectomy?

No, what I mean is that it potentially (to whoever) can come off that way, which I didn't consider when I first made it.

[chaz wyman]

There is no 'meant to'. In a non urban pre-civilised (what you might call natural environment) life expectancy was around 35. Modern diets might not be ideal but they have extended our lives enourmously. The reason why there is obesity and diabetes is that those people are following their evolved interests and eating when every they can - they are being natural. We are evolved from the need to eat when we can.

What I mean by unnatural is that our bodies weren't meant to have so much free time for sedentary living, and so much food to eat. It's out of synch with the conditions evolution "had in in mind" when we evolved, thus unnatural. Yes, I know evolution isn't a thinking organism, it's just a metaphor.

You keep saying "MEANT". This is meaningless in this context, unless you think we were designed by god.
As far as evolution is concerned living to 78 is a success story. There is no "HAD IN MIND". evolution is the consequence of reproductive survival. Fat people have children too. Case Closed. You are using a naturalistic fallacy. When you unthink that - then you will see the situation more clearly. Until you do you will continue to misrepresent and misunderstand what is really going on.

It is natural to reserve your energy and avoid exercise. We are naturally evolved to conserve our energy. Lions spend all day laying down in the shade and only move to kill or steal the kill of a weaker animal..

Lions are different from us.

No shit - tell me how that is relevant in this case. Hunter Gatherers also reserve their energy when they are not hunting and gathering. We live more than twice as long as them - so we are a success story with diabetes and obesity.

And they did spend time playing in the stone age too. Activity is fun. Again we must return to the issue of unnaturality. As stated earlier we have much more free time than our bodies we're made to have. The entire structure of living has changed, and quite quickly too, leaving us with this. Also, my point about people getting hooked on all kinds of crap is still relevant.

Your problem is your idea of natural. I suggest you abandon it.
It is natural to get hooked on stuff. To avoid this behaviour we must transcend our natural urges.

Only in your mind. There are no archetypes - that is no more than a myth to organise and categorise that which should never be categorised. These categories are a choice. You generalisation is a choice. You can see difference if you want to.

I do see superficial differences, yes. But due to memories of the past being where they are, it won't ever be entirely unexpected or new. And I doubt we can so easily conclude it's only in the mind. Yes, they don't exist as anything physically distinct, it's more general patterns. But then again, as long as there exist minds which can perceive the universe the patterns will necessarily be reflected in those minds, which means the archetypal patterns have an indirect, material form through the going ons in our brains.

You can generalise until you are blue in the face but you will not find solution until you truly understand a thing by drawing distinctions.

Have you had a humourectomy?

No, what I mean is that it potentially (to whoever) can come off that way, which I didn't consider when I first made it.

This is an ungrammatical response and I have no idea what you are trying to drive at.

[PhilosophiaQueen]

You keep saying "MEANT". This is meaningless in this context, unless you think we were designed by god.
As far as evolution is concerned living to 78 is a success story. There is no "HAD IN MIND". evolution is the consequence of reproductive survival. Fat people have children too. Case Closed. You are using a naturalistic fallacy. When you unthink that - then you will see the situation more clearly. Until you do you will continue to misrepresent and misunderstand what is really going on.

Yes, living to 78 is a success story by the metric of living longer = better. That too is unnatural as evolution isn't integrated with that as a background. On an individual basis, as stated earlier, that's not really bad. Sedentary living is not a contributor to longer living (diabetes, heart disease, etc) so seen by itself it's bad by the earlier metric... My main point though, is that the average background with which humanity evolved is not like the one we have today, thus there will be clashes like these. If the average was that we always had too much food and freetime, then evolution might have given us better impulse control and the like so as to resist overuse and addiction better. Our genes haven't catched up to modern society yet, so we're out of our element, that is what I mean by unnatural. The "meant" part is thus really beside the point, it's onl meant to illustrate, and there's no reason to get hanged up in it.

No shit - tell me how that is relevant in this case. Hunter Gatherers also reserve their energy when they are not hunting and gathering. We live more than twice as long as them - so we are a success story with diabetes and obesity.

As an overall story where everything hangs together and with the metric of living longer = better then yes, we're better off than them.

Your problem is your idea of natural. I suggest you abandon it.
It is natural to get hooked on stuff. To avoid this behaviour we must transcend our natural urges.

Yeah. It's out of our element to have THIS much stuff which we can potentially get hooked on, and so much freetime to get hookd.

You can generalise until you are blue in the face but you will not find solution until you truly understand a thing by drawing distinctions.

Solutions? Problem solving isn't what I'm driving at in my life, but rather an enjoyable experience... I don't really care for "a new twist on X" where X is the generalized archetype, with this as basis, I have to look for something worth doing other than seeing new variations, which is why I arrive at intensity.

This is an ungrammatical response and I have no idea what you are trying to drive at.

I meant that while you in particular may not think of the name that way, several others potentially could. The name didn't serve any other purpose other than as wordplay, so if it's potentially to my detriment by annoying responders, then I should have picked something else.

[chaz wyman]

You keep saying "MEANT". This is meaningless in this context, unless you think we were designed by god.
As far as evolution is concerned living to 78 is a success story. There is no "HAD IN MIND". evolution is the consequence of reproductive survival. Fat people have children too. Case Closed. You are using a naturalistic fallacy. When you unthink that - then you will see the situation more clearly. Until you do you will continue to misrepresent and misunderstand what is really going on.

Yes, living to 78 is a success story by the metric of living longer = better. That too is unnatural as evolution isn't integrated with that as a background.

You are persisting in your naturalistic fallacy. What the hell do you even think you mean by natural? It's a shame natural can't here you and follow your rules!


On an individual basis, as stated earlier, that's not really bad. Sedentary living is not a contributor to longer living (diabetes, heart disease, etc) so seen by itself it's bad by the earlier metric.

Yeah tell that to an Indian tea-picker, who died of arthritis, or a child labourer that died of lime inhalation.

My main point though, is that the average background with which humanity evolved is not like the one we have today, thus there will be clashes like these.

Nonetheless the evolution of the urban landscape and humans with the thinking to design it is as natural as anything else. No evolved species is perfectly adapted to its environment. Over specialised species always end up on the scrap heap. Perhaps our greatest asset is that humans are designed adaptable, were we to loose those traits that made us good hunters and gatherers we might not survive the next collapse of civilisation - so keeping those traits that you might consider to be unfortunate might be useful again. it's the price we pay for living longer but getting diseases of old age. We are one of a few species that get these diseases- we ought to be proud that we live so long.


If the average was that we always had too much food and freetime, then evolution might have given us better impulse control and the like so as to resist overuse and addiction better.

It does not work like that. Traits have to be present in the gene pool BEFORE they are required and selected. Evolution can only work on selection by those without traits failing to make viable progeny.


Our genes haven't catched up to modern society yet, so we're out of our element, that is what I mean by unnatural. The "meant" part is thus really beside the point, it's onl meant to illustrate, and there's no reason to get hanged up in it.

They never will "catch-up", - like I said fat people and diabetic people have no problem having children. Case closed.

No shit - tell me how that is relevant in this case. Hunter Gatherers also reserve their energy when they are not hunting and gathering. We live more than twice as long as them - so we are a success story with diabetes and obesity.

As an overall story where everything hangs together and with the metric of living longer = better then yes, we're better off than them.

Hallelujah! nature has no other criteria for success than having viable progeny. Diseases of opulence and old age are not de-selected because they do not harm our ability to have children. That is NATURE.

Your problem is your idea of natural. I suggest you abandon it.
It is natural to get hooked on stuff. To avoid this behaviour we must transcend our natural urges.

Yeah. It's out of our element to have THIS much stuff which we can potentially get hooked on, and so much freetime to get hookd.

So what? You are making a moral argument - not a naturalistic one.

You can generalise until you are blue in the face but you will not find solution until you truly understand a thing by drawing distinctions.

Solutions? Problem solving isn't what I'm driving at in my life, but rather an enjoyable experience... I don't really care for "a new twist on X" where X is the generalized archetype, with this as basis, I have to look for something worth doing other than seeing new variations, which is why I arrive at intensity.

Guess what? nature has also provided you with a brain. You can avoid the things you don't like. but that does not give you the right to tell people how they ought to live.

This is an ungrammatical response and I have no idea what you are trying to drive at.

I meant that while you in particular may not think of the name that way, several others potentially could. The name didn't serve any other purpose other than as wordplay, so if it's potentially to my detriment by annoying responders, then I should have picked something else.

Like I implied before - it was a joke.