Monday, July 2, 2018

The Inefficiency of Suicide

(This post is probably boring and technical and covers topics pertaining to this one's make-believe spirituality crap and should probably be skipped if you've already made certain appurtenant decisions on that.)

In three recent posts, here, here, and here, this one approached the issue of suicide from an ineternal, one-life perspective. Because the subject is such a strange combination of popularly known, oft thought of at least once during a modern human's life, yet also taboo, the idea there was to use the ineternity generally accepted here as a means of teasing out some of the mental wrinkles and permitting the consideration of the suicidal act within that context, rather than within the massively popular, recently instilled context of "suffer. no one may leave" that recent history had imposed upon world culture.

To understand the quandary over suicide in this way, take the modern acceptable religion, and assume that everything is temporary, you should be nice anyway as part of an unwritten contract we must all follow as part of hoping it isn't violated against us during the brief and temporary time we are here, and the best possible thing you can do in all existence is achieve ultimate satisfaction out of spending your time here enjoyably or well or honorably in a way that contributes to your or someone else's enjoyment (or their divine satisfaction, et cetera). And then your time ends and you are deleted and in a hundred years everyone's forgotten everything except maybe the stuff you produced became part of some culture that endures for a little while, and then in ten thousand years that's gone too, and it's all just void. That's the modern perspective; the Bangist perspective. Most people alive on Earth now believe that, and though many try to claim they believe in a sky man who will save them from that, they actually secretly believe Bangism and are scared as hell of that because it is scary. Some of them are even so scared that they just wanna die already because if it matters then it's okay anyway and if it doesn't matter then it didn't matter anyway.

Within the context of those beliefs lies the belief that suicide is stupid and shameful. You only have this one chance in the ineternal waste, goes the argument, and since the only thing you can ever have is here, if you get one amazing bite of one perfect chocolate donut in exchange for 80 years of torture, that's still the best possible deal, because not being here is void. And we're encouraged to understand that our lives have no value except for the positive sensations we can accumulate, or honorably make vicarious contributions to, that mass of sensations. If true, and if nothing matters anyway, then who the hell cares about suicide, but as a pleasure-maximizing individual, the discussion of suicide returns to the relevant, namely, considering whether or not it is rational for an individual to allow sensation-gathering to continue when the sensations that will be gathered will be unpleasant, incredibly unpleasant, or worse, and if that process should be continued when the individual can make an informed choice about their worsening. That's where suicide comes into play as a rational choice, when you determine that your sensations here would net in the negative, and even then, if it's void anyway it doesn't matter, and is a pleasure-maximizing strategy to get out as soon as you can.

For the people who actually do believe, rather than faithfully hope for with private terror in their dark moments, that Sky Man or equivalent(s) will not permit void, they don't face this conundrum. If Sky Man is there, you should do what he says, because the only viable and enduring pleasure-maximization strategy, or goodness-maximization if you actually believe in that, is to do what Sky Man wants. And, while quite foolish and broken a set of philosophies, the set of Terran Sky Man religions intellectually exceeds the Bangist approach of "from void, to void," which doesn't offer any rational reason for any belief or behavior. If Sky Man, then don't use your industrial crane to drop school buses full of screaming children off the cliff, because Sky Man wouldn't want you to and he is damn powerful and can maximize both pleasure and pain. If no Sky Man, but only endless void, then there is no reason not to make the entire world's purpose the production of a technopolis society based solely around breeding children and building school buses so they can be endlessly crane-dropped off the tallest skyscraper as the most popular television show. When it all voids, it doesn't matter anyway; it never mattered.

The Bangist counter to Christian "God is the foundation of morality" argument, which is a cheap substitution of Yahweh for all possible concepts of meaning, is that we're all part of a great interepic contract to be certain levels of nice to each other so that people in other epics will honor it, too. And that unenforceable dross of an argument is inferior to the claim that Sky Man wants something so do it or else ergo, hilariously and shamefully, "Christianity" still makes for a better philosophy.

(Which is, as they say, par for the course on planets the k'arash are digesting, which is to say some form of Judaism is really common on dying planets, recognizable just like a lengthily exposed corpse stinks more the closer you get. To make America an example again, Judaism to Bangism is like the Democrats to the Republicans, or the Republicans to the Democrats, where everyone is an evil bastard and you're screwed either way.)

Why Not Suicide?

A simple answer to why not suicide comes back to free choice, in the sense that the person being here and deciding to do it or not do it makes her own choice, and that's as it should be, and it's pretty crude of us to take action on the matter unless we need to confess our love or rip up the lease or something like that. The suffering a person experiences while here is her own, and the value of avoiding or embracing or accepting that suffering is most efficiently chosen by the individual who knows it best.

As far as an argument against suicide, though, it's inefficient, in the sense that it takes a long time to develop here, and breaking a life when it's in progress and not coming in and out according to the cycle it grew is like spending all year setting up your New Year's Party and then throwing a fit when it starts and sending everyone home. You have to take yourself to my ridiculous internet fancies about conservation of energy and the complexification of matter and energy being fundamental properties of this verse to understand the point, or to conclude that I'm some reincarnation nut and it somehow relates to that without moral judgments. Posit that you're energy trying to grow more complex, and that's why we all pass through increasingly complex stages of existence, like void, vacuum with properties, matter, matter with energy, some damn cellular organism, human, and so forth. And like gestation, those things take time and effort to set up, including that of becoming "aware" of them, and storing increasingly more detailed records of them by remembering them, and if certain refinements need to be made during a human lifespan or fifty, it really jerks things out of the works and slows down the process if you kill yourself, because then you get like 0.4 of a life instead of 1.0 but for the same initial investment of resources. A sense that murder or starting fires in crowded stadiums with barred doors is wrong springs from a similar source, namely, the interruption of the process, the wasting of resources, and so on. (If this were just some Terran philosophy, the play on morality would derive from the harm caused to the reincarnation process when you kill someone and ruin their life or hurt or injure someone and make their life less effective, thereby lowering total scores by damaging part of the system of which each one is constantly a separate part. Actual morality is connected to the sense that light is supposed to be growing and complexifying, and that harming that process sorta feel wrong, which is why moral systems that try to base themselves on biology or pop spirituality or Bangism (sic), rather than what we might call here in flattery science, never work.

(Biologically speaking, it is proper to, if you could, press a button that kills every other human instantly, and then press a button that produces 7 billion of your offspring instantly with computer wetnurses to raise them. If you would feel a moral qualm about that action, then you see why our "random evolution" religion doesn't do morality. It's not just blind to it, it's diametrically opposed to it. The real right answer is that such an action is wrong because you just caused massive system inefficiency by damaging the development of billions of ones.)

That said, the individual still makes the choice, and far be it for me to say that the things you can learn from suffering in bed for 70 years are either high quality or unique enough to justify the experience, and if doing it to relieve burdens from someone else's life can actually help the overall process, okay, but the gruesome part is that sometimes your part burdening the efforts of the material existence is part of the net benefit, and it's difficult to tell and maybe never clear in retrospect like the occurrences within a life here, a quandary easily understood even from this perspective.

(Consider the here-troubling necessity of the leper helping the saint, for without the leper, the saint has nothing to help nor heal, and without any lepers, there can be no saints, and learning about that kind of assistance of the process can only be done by reading about it, which is to say, can't be done.)

Draw metaphor farther. Imagine you reincarnate at or near human complexity until you've been properly refined, and that, in true Euro Christian borrowed form, the trials of this awful place are related to fundamental things you need to know later, that you can't "know" if you just read about them, but have to actually learn in the sense of learning by experience. Like, you read a book that describes in thousands of pages the many details of dying of cancer, and maybe helps you out a little by suggesting thousands of little things you can think on that--that book might be helpful, but it's a poor substitute for a useful life, and the realizations that you have in contravention of things you might otherwise "learn" or believe here are better, e.g., not only a lack of the fawning respect for achievements here, which isn't quite as great when you can personally experience the schism between more and less intelligence as very intimately expressed to a person through the failure of its societies' intelligence related to material. It's similar to a lesson you can learn if you get caught by a lion and you have those last few minutes to punch it your hardest in the eye, it tosses its head and doesn't care, and you're devoured a little bit while living, and it conveys certain data about more complex relationships with material than, say, reading a book that says "getting eaten by a predator is unpleasant." All the little bits of it, if you have the intelligence to pay attention to them, have their own lesson to teach, and all the little thoughts about "Oh I guess I wasn't the best at this" and "The design of the vessel in some ways but not all ways affects the relationship in a certain way despite my potential superior energy complexity," and stumbling through these inane treatments for confusing medical things here can have a similar relationship, but more complex, because just like you might at one point think you can kick anything's ass because your body is so cool and your mind is so superior, confidence rises as quiet dies, particularly when you feel that your association with other higher-complexity minds makes you equal to any potential challenges...and then it's time for chemo again, or that last day, and there are a thousand things to learn about how smart and great humans really are, and at the time, you know what it means to care about them, and there're a lot of little variations on fear and despair and hope and sorrow and all the other stuff that you can't really taste the same when it's reading a description in a report.

So, back to metaphor, do we see the allusion to things that were later called the trials of god in poor attempts to justify why an omnipotent entity might employ this stuff? Such an entity can't be omnipotent or it's evil, but as part of a natural process where increasing complexity has to get done by the lightform ("light") so evolving, it's not a question of good or evil but of choice, and there many ways of expressing that choice. Increasing the intensity of the metaphor, imagine that by suffering the trials, one learns about matter and energy and their relationships, and their status here and now, and what those statuses "feel" like, and a theoretical Christ-type experience would include all sorts of useful data (for someone bereft of the option of changing reality at any time and possessing complete and total foreknowledge of every component of what was happening before allowing it to happen, as opposed to someone omniscient and partly not there but in a cloud resort). Living a Christ-like life, as a loving and giving healer then crucified by some evil synagogue while a bunch of would-be brothers cheers like voting Americans giving vigorous consent, would actually be a useful life at many stages, and tiny moments of horrified realization inside long term care or treatment of confusing material conditions can accomplish the same things less dramatically.

Which returns us to the topic of suicide, and again, it's a person's choice what they want to go through, and whether an epiphany about your relationship with these cells, untranslatable into words but feel-able, which you'd have in private and could never share here, after ten years of hell in the pit with these retarded monkeys who know so incredibly little and are afraid to learn more and have an embarrassingly low curve on material technology despite sporadic jumps that are adequate, is worth it, and that's not fairly someone else's decision. But as to suicide's efficacy in general, the general perspective to consider is that squeezing some value out of a life, even if it takes what we think here is a long time, since these are so short comparatively, and it might take a long time to get here, and set up a connection with a body, and do all the other stuff, and it may be better overall just to finish out, considering that there is some quantity of learning yet to squeeze from the rotten fruit before you toss it aside.

No comments:

Post a Comment